MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

Queen's Speech (Answer To Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
	 I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks  for the S peech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Comptroller and Auditor General

I have to inform the House that the address of 23 rd January , praying that Her Majesty will appoint Timothy John Burr to the of fice of Comptroller and Auditor  Gener al, was presented to Her Majesty who was graciously pleas ed to comply with the request.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Veterans Day

David Wright: What plans he is considering to mark Veterans day.

Derek Twigg: I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of Royal Air Force Sergeant Duane "Baz" Barwood, who died in Iraq on Friday 29 February. We owe him and others who have lost their lives a deep debt of gratitude.
	The third annual Veterans day will take place on 27 June 2008, and we have allocated £350,000 to support events across the UK. In January, I announced that Blackpool will host this year's national event. To date, more than 80 UK towns and cities will host major events to celebrate the achievements of the country's veterans, and we expect many more to do so. We are also working to ensure the effective involvement of ex-service organisations and service units.

David Wright: The whole House associates itself with the Minister's remarks about Sergeant Barwood, who give his life serving our country. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.
	Given that the Government are considering options for another bank holiday, is it not time that Veterans day was a bank holiday?

Derek Twigg: I am sure that there will be a lot of support for that, particularly in the veterans community. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the decision is not mine to take, but many veterans have pressed that case and I am sure that they will continue to do so. As Minister with responsibility for veterans, I am the voice for veterans in government, and it is important to make sure that everyone is aware of veterans' views on that issue.

Michael Penning: As we think about Veterans day, can we consider some of the veterans who did not return home, in particular Captain Robert Nairac of 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, whose body has never been found following his service in Northern Ireland? Is there any news on Captain Nairac's body?

Derek Twigg: I do not have any news, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman after I have returned to the Ministry of Defence and found out any further information.

Andrew MacKinlay: This year marks the 90th anniversary of the first world war armistice, of which there are a few veterans still alive. Will the Minister say how we will commemorate that occasion, bearing in mind that it was a seminal moment socially, politically and militarily for our country and, indeed, for Europe?

Derek Twigg: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that moment. My grandfather fought in the first world war, and I am particularly proud of his record—of course, the first world war touched nearly every family in the country. As my hon. Friend knows, we intend to hold a significant event when the passing of the last world war one veteran takes place. He is right to say that we need to do something this year to mark the 90th anniversary, and I will set out more detail for the House at a future date. At the moment, we plan to hold an event around remembrance week. It is also possible that there will be an event in France, and I will discuss that issue with the French Defence Minister.

Mark Field: Although I acknowledge other hon. Members' contributions on particular veterans' issues, I want to stress the importance of ensuring that there is a memorial to Sir Keith Park in Trafalgar square, which is in my constituency. There will be a campaign on Sir Keith Park, Bomber Command and the battle of Britain, and although I do not expect a positive answer from the Minister at this juncture, I have put the matter on the record.

Julian Brazier: Fighter Command.

Mark Field: As my hon. Friend rightly points out from a sedentary position, the campaign concerns Fighter Command. The Minister should give some credence to that campaign in the months and years ahead.

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a great deal of support for that campaign. However, there are many campaigns for different memorials to various acts of heroism and service. He will also know that memorials are usually funded by public subscription, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage. However, I understand the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman has expressed; I can only praise all those who served in Bomber Command, the rest of the Air Force and the other services during the second and first world wars.

Jim Devine: John Patterson is a local hero in my constituency. He flew more than 32 bombing raids into Berlin and ended the war flying Field Marshal Montgomery throughout Africa. As a result of publicity, he met a comrade whom he had not seen for 62 years. Will my hon. Friend consider producing a special magazine that contains the names of all the people who have received a veterans badge so that they can get in contact with old comrades?

Derek Twigg: I have to be candid with my hon. Friend and say that I had not thought about that until now. I shall certainly have a look at the idea. About 550,000 veterans badges have now been given out and the practice is becoming ever more popular. I do not know whether we can do anything along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but I shall write to him.

Andrew Murrison: We Conservatives wish to be associated with the Minister's message of condolence to the family of Sergeant Duane Barwood, who died serving our country.
	Parades and badges are important, but veterans are also looking for a more tangible recognition of their service and sacrifice. Will the Minister use the opportunity of Veterans day to announce, first, his plans to remedy the shortcomings in the management of post-traumatic stress disorder among veterans, highlighted last month by the Defence Committee? Secondly, will he announce his plans for ensuring that there is continuity of care throughout the UK for amputees who leave the defence services rehabilitation centre at Headley Court and become reliant on NHS limb centres, which are not as well resourced and may very well have competing clinical priorities?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made a number of announcements about PTSD in the past few months. He has visited the medical assessment centre at St. Thomas's—people can go there to get a mental health assessment, support and help to link in with that from their general practitioner. We have also announced the reservists mental health scheme and a 45 per cent. increase in funding for Combat Stress from January this year.
	There is also an important new project, in which the Ministry of Defence will work with Combat Stress and the health service to develop specific pilots to address the mental health problems of veterans. Clearly, that is still at an early stage. We will continue to consider what more we can do to improve support for veterans. Given that we have much better knowledge of PTSD and mental health these days, I suspect that we can always do more.
	It is important that we understand that the quality of the prosthetic limbs that our service people get at Headley Court is world class. If they have to leave the services, such people will obviously come under the care of the national health service. It is important that we have a system that will maintain that standard of prosthetic limb. That is why we are working with the national health service and talking to a number of health trusts about how we can provide such a service.

Health Care

Rosie Cooper: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on arrangements for ex-service personnel to receive continuing secondary health care.

Derek Twigg: I have regular contact with my Department of Health counterparts. Recently, I discussed our response to the Defence Committee's inquiry into Defence Medical Services. The issues that the Committee raised, including continuity of care for veterans, will be covered in the Government's formal response to its report.

Rosie Cooper: In the light of that answer, will the Minister expand on the progress that has been made with the regional pilots that are being used to improve the mental health of ex-service personnel?

Derek Twigg: I have visited pilots in Stafford and Camden and am pleased to see that they are developing well. There are, of course, other pilots in Wales, St. Austell, Cleveland and Scotland. The pilots are important because they will allow us to develop a service tailored to the particular needs of veterans suffering from a mental health problem.
	I should like to make it specifically clear that the issue is not about the actual standard of treatment and care—that is the same whether the patient is a civilian or from the services. The issue is about understanding the culture of the armed forces and about the experiences that might have led to the mental health problems of those who have served in them. There is a greater understanding and therefore better care; that is the important point to make. That links in with Combat Stress, with which we are working very closely.

Peter Bottomley: The House will understand that the Government now understand the issues and we are grateful for that.
	The Minister mentioned continuing health care. Will he also consult the ex-service associations and make it plain to those dealing with wills that the estates of those whose deaths, whether early or late, might have been brought forward by war service or wounds, can be inherited tax-free?

Derek Twigg: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that today, but I shall certainly write to him with my views on the issue.
	As a Department, we work closely with ex-service organisations on a range of issues; I meet their representatives regularly. That partnership is an important part of the support that we give those who have lost loved ones on operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere and of the treatment of the wounded and veterans. That relationship is important for us.

Anne McIntosh: As the Minister knows, I have a constituent who is suffering from post-combat mental stress. In the first instance, he is finding it very difficult to get a GP referral, and in the second instance, he is being told that he cannot get any treatment for it in the north of England, so he has to travel to the south of England, which is adding to the stress of his condition and that for his mother and the rest of his family. This is simply not acceptable, and I hope that the Minister will look at some alternatives so that we can have treatment for these very brave soldiers nearer to their homes.

Derek Twigg: That is why we are looking at mental health pilots to see how we can develop a system around the country so that people can get treated near to home. Although we are currently offering the medical assessment programme at St. Thomas's, we pay travel expenses for someone to go there. That support is important. Our doctor there, Dr. Ian Palmer, who is a former Army medic, will be able to link in with the individual's GP to help to advise on the best course of treatment for that individual. If my memory serves me right, I think that I have written to the hon. Lady about this issue, and I urge her to advise her constituents to take that advice.

Richard Benyon: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of ongoing care provided for servicemen and women wounded on operations; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: I am confident that the enhancements we have made to the ongoing care for service personnel have created a first-class service. The House of Commons Defence Committee agrees, declaring in its February 2008 Report "Medical Care for the Armed Forces":
	"The clinical care for Servicemen and women seriously injured on operations is second to none. Defence Medical Services personnel, working with the NHS, provide world-class care and we pay tribute to them".
	We are not complacent and continue to examine what further improvements we can make in the medical care and welfare of our service personnel.

Richard Benyon: Alarming stories are emerging from servicemen who are being treated, under the MOD's contract for trauma stress, with The Priory Group. We have heard stories of people being told not to talk about their experiences for fear of upsetting civilian members of the group. We also heard of one case where an individual was sitting next to a woman who was receiving bereavement counselling for the loss of her cat. Does the Minister accept that it is not entirely appropriate that the psychological welfare of servicemen traumatised by war is being subcontracted out to an organisation such as The Priory Group?

Derek Twigg: Hon. Members will remember that we heard similar stories about various cases at Selly Oak. I will be happy to look at any individual case for which the hon. Gentleman can give me evidence. The Priory Group has, rightly, been treating our service personnel, but it works very closely with our department of community mental health, which visits it on a regular basis. Personally, I have not had any complaints, and I meet very many veterans, some of whom have been to the Priory. That is not to say that things do not go wrong on occasion. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Members, can give me details of specific cases, I assure him that I will have them investigated. As I say, we heard the same sort of stories about Selly Oak, but we have just had the report back about the medical services that are provided there for our injured service personnel, which are first class. I am not suggesting that we can never improve anywhere, but the Select Committee looked at current mental health care provision as well, and said that it was very good.

Jim Cunningham: Following on from the previous question, if all personnel returning from war-torn areas are subject to counselling, what is the quality of that counselling?

Derek Twigg: The process is that if someone who is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan develops a mental health problem, they can go and see a community psychiatric nurse and, if necessary, a consultant. Many can be treated or cared for in operational service out there, and some will need to be sent back to the UK. We have our departments of community mental health around the country, which can provide them with support, and eventually, as we have just heard, they could be admitted to the Priory for further intensive care. In addition to that, our service personnel go through a period of decompression before they come back, which is very important. We also have in service the new trauma risk management system—TRiM—which was originally used by the Royal Marines and now by the Army. All the feedback on that from service personnel says that it is very good and helps people. There is effective support in theatre and back in the UK as well.

Patrick Mercer: I pay tribute to the treatment that Lance Corporal Nick Davis, of my constituency, has received both at Selly Oak and at Headley Court. Although his amputation has been traumatic, he has been treated well, but I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that his family found it extremely difficult to visit him. His mother has been living with him in Birmingham, and then down in Epsom, but his father has had no support, with the children or with his job, to enable him to visit his gallant son. May I ask the Minister to consider giving support in these circumstances?

Derek Twigg: I give the hon. Gentleman a clear assurance that I will look into the case. When wounded services personnel are taken to Selly Oak, families are given funding to visit, and there is accommodation there for families. That provision is based on medical need, which is obvious when an injury first takes place and the person in question is admitted to Selly Oak.
	With regard to Headley Court, if there is a clinical, medical need for it, support for families can be given. The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association— SSAFA—has just invested in a house for families there. I am surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but if he gives me the details I assure him that I will look into the matter and get back to him.

Gisela Stuart: Following on from that answer, I understand that an appeal is being launched in Birmingham to extend facilities where families can stay to support those in Selly Oak. Can the Minister assure me that his Department will support that appeal as much as possible?

Derek Twigg: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, as I did with regard to the SSAFA house at Headley Court. SSAFA already helps with housing support at Selly Oak, and the new hospital being built there means that it will get even better facilities. It is an important part of the process that SSAFA is involved in the delivery of more housing for the families of injured service personnel. That is good because it shows the ex-service and charitable sector working with the Government to provide care, and it gives members of the public a chance to show their support for the armed forces.

James Gray: In addition to the first-class medical care offered to our soldiers returning from Afghanistan, is it not high time that we recognised their great gallantry by striking a gallantry medal for those who have been wounded or even killed there? Perhaps we ought to call it the Prince Harry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the question.

Iraqi Forces (Training)

James McGovern: What progress has been made on the mentoring, monitoring and training of Iraqi security forces in southern Iraq.

Des Browne: We continue to make good progress in our monitoring, mentoring and training efforts with the Iraqi security forces. They have shown themselves able to deal effectively with security incidents that have occurred. The most recent include operations to counter smuggling, border enforcement and successful containment of the religiously motivated violence at the Ashura festival in January.

James McGovern: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. As he indicated, this is a crucial matter for us. Will he provide evidence of how overwatch is delivered by our armed forces in southern Iraq?

Des Browne: Contrary to some commentary on our forces' activities in southern Iraq, we continue to play an important role there. I have already referred to the mentoring, monitoring and training of the Iraqi security forces. The view is that the 10th Division of the Iraqi army has improved significantly under that training, and that the 14th Division is progressing, although it is some way behind the 10th. Frequently, we support those troops in active operations, such as the counter-smuggling operation I referred to, which involved the seizing of 15 smuggling barges in the Shatt al-Arab waterway recently. That notable success was principally achieved by the Iraqi army. Where necessary, and at the request of the Iraqi army or their forces, we provide them with capabilities that they do not have access to, such as air cover, fast air support or aerial surveillance. Of course, we do that while retaining the ability and willingness to intervene if called upon to do so by the Iraqi army, but increasingly, that is becoming unlikely.

James Arbuthnot: Does the Secretary of State agree that the men and women of the armed forces doing such important work in Iraq and Afghanistan are heroes, whatever Prince Harry may modestly say about himself, and that we can be utterly proud of what they are doing? Is the Secretary of State on Facebook? Has he been invited to join a group demanding an apology from the Drudge Report?

Des Browne: I have not specifically been invited. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman and his advice, which I normally respect immensely, it might be unwise for me to join Facebook. However, I support the tenor of his question. All those who serve us in Iraq and Afghanistan—and in other places, including Sierra Leone, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces recently visited—are entitled to be considered heroes. On the right hon. Gentleman's observation about Prince Harry and his treatment by the media, I thought the most important thing Prince Harry did was put into context the heroism of those with whom he had served.

Jeremy Corbyn: There were reports in yesterday's papers that the Government are to bring forward the withdrawal of a further 1,000 troops from Iraq. Will the Secretary of State make any comment that he feels fit on that? Will he also give us an estimate of the final date for withdrawing all British troops from Iraq?

Des Browne: Currently, we have approximately 4,100 troops serving in southern Iraq and we continue to work on detailed plans with our allies, including the Iraqi security forces and other coalition partners, to determine the appropriate number of troops. Those decisions will be made on the basis of military advice, and when I am ready to make a further statement to the House about numbers, I will do so, just as I have kept the House informed as numbers have reduced.
	On the final part of my hon. Friend's question, a final decision will be based on an assessment of the Iraqis' ability to provide security for themselves and their people.

Aircraft Carriers

Richard Ottaway: What his policy is on whether aircraft carriers are a necessary component of the UK's defence requirement.

Des Browne: The future carriers will be a key component of the improved expeditionary capabilities that we need to confront the diverse range of threats in today's security environment. They deliver on the Government's commitment in the strategic defence review.

Richard Ottaway: If the Secretary of State believes that there is a future role for the aircraft carriers, he should get on and replace them as his inaction is becoming an embarrassment not only to him but to the Royal Navy. The Illustrious has twice had to be towed back into port after breakdowns, and a tug is on standby in case it breaks down again. There is no air defence cover for the fleet until well into the next decade. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that smacks of a Government who do not understand the nature of maritime power and the lead times involved—unless he is looking to cancel the project?

Des Browne: If what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's comments is a question about whether there is any change in the in-service dates for the carriers, there is not.

Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the article in February's  Parliamentary Brief by Dr. Eric Grove, director of the Centre for International Security and War Studies, on "Tomorrow's Navy for tomorrow's world"? It concludes that, by 2020, "the Brown years" may be seen to be those
	"when the seeds were finally laid for a renaissance of British maritime power and global presence".

Des Browne: I am not qualified to see that far into the future and retrospectively assess the position. However, since 1997, when the Government came to power, 31 new ships have been brought into service. We plan to spend approximately £14 billion on naval equipment in the next 10 to 15 years. That constitutes historic investment in our Navy, which will significantly increase its capability. I am sure that future generations will thank us for that investment.

Willie Rennie: I was pleased to join the Secretary of State at Rosyth dockyard last month for the signing of the contract to extend the dock to take the aircraft carriers. Why has yet another month passed without the main contracts for the aircraft carrier being signed?

Des Browne: As I have said repeatedly, we are working closely with the industry over months for this complex contract to be ready for signature. In the mean time, however, as the hon. Gentleman knows—I was in his constituency awarding a contract—a number of contracts have been placed in the supply chain, for design, engineering data, materials in support of the manufacture of the carriers and infrastructure, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which will be necessary to construct the carriers after the individual elements have been built. We are getting on with the job, and as long as the in-service dates remain the same—and they do remain the same—he can rest assured that we will contract at the appropriate time.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend said that we could not look that far into the future, but the purchase of aircraft carriers that will remain in service for many years requires us to do so. When we look at future defence requirements and defence expenditure, should we perhaps not be asking our European allies to enter into an arrangement whereby we can joint-purchase such equipment, to be leased to the nation that needs it at any point in time?

Des Browne: The Government's approach has been to encourage each individual country to meet its own commitments to invest in its capabilities and armed forces. That process has paid dividends—not as quickly as we would have wanted in some respects, although progress is being made. In particular, Afghanistan has been a transformatory process for a number of countries in that regard.

Gerald Howarth: The Select Committee on Defence said 18 months ago:
	"If the In-Service Dates for the"
	carrier
	"programme are substantially later than 2012, there is a serious risk of a capability gap emerging which would impact upon the ability of the Royal Navy to undertake its role effectively."
	Last July, the Government announced that they had delayed the in-service dates by two years, to between 2014 and 2016. Reports this weekend suggest further delays and that even if the matter is not delayed, the contractors will be asked to delay cutting metal. If there is no further delay, as the Secretary of State has just told the House, why is the Prime Minister dithering about a programme described by his own Minister responsible for security, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, as the
	"jewel in the crown of the Strategic Defence Review"?

Des Browne: There is no dithering. We are talking about a complex contract. It was announced in July that we were going forward, and there has been no change to the in-service dates. The important thing is the real-terms increases in defence investment for which the Government have been responsible, year on year and planned into the future of the comprehensive spending review—exactly the same investment, I understand, that the Conservative party has agreed it would make if it came into government, although that is now in some doubt because of other commitments that have been made. Those who are interested in defence spending might wonder where those additional cuts might be made. However, there will be no change in the in-service dates, and the hon. Gentleman should not consider this idle speculation.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is aware that we are talking about two important platforms from which the Royal Navy will project its presence round the world. However, to go with those platforms, we need the joint strike fighter. Can he ensure that we will not see any delays in that order?

Des Browne: The JSF programme is developing. Indeed, flight testing of the JSF has been commenced and is progressing well. In fact, I understand that the first short take-off and vertical landing aircraft was rolled out in December 2007 and is undergoing testing, with the first flight planned later this year. We remain committed to the joint strike fighter as the optimal solution to operate from the future carriers, as the joint combat aircraft requirement. As is normal in a programme of such size and technical complexity, reports may emerge concerning progress—that issue was raised in the last Defence questions—but we remain committed to the aircraft.

Kosovo

Philip Davies: What forces he has identified for possible deployment to Kosovo; and for how long he expects such forces to be liable for deployment to Kosovo.

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the possible deployment of forces to Kosovo.

Bob Ainsworth: As part of our long-standing commitment to the Balkans, the UK remains ready to deploy a battalion to Kosovo until the end of 2008, as part of the NATO pan-Balkans operational reserve force. Any deployment would be for an initial period of 30 days, after which we will re-examine the requirement with NATO. The 1 Welsh Guards is currently on standby to deploy if necessary.

Philip Davies: If UK troops are deployed, the armed forces, which are already at breaking point, will be heavily overstretched. Will the Minister confirm what effect the deployment may have on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Bob Ainsworth: It would not have any effect on operations in Afghanistan and Iran—[Hon. Members: "Iraq."] In Iraq. This is a long-standing commitment that is being provided for within our planning assumptions, and 1 Welsh Guards stand ready to deploy. The lead element would be ready, if necessary, within four days; the rest of the battalion would be ready within seven days. We have been prepared for that for some time.

Bob Spink: Given our overstretch and the regrettable reluctance of European Union NATO countries to take on their share in Afghanistan, does the Minister not agree that those countries should bear the brunt of any troop deployment for peacekeeping purposes in Kosovo?

Bob Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just told me that there are 18,000 NATO troops in Kosovo. We share responsibility for the reserve with Italy and Germany. It happens that, in 2008, that responsibility falls to us, and we have prepared for that deployment, which is all catered for within our assumptions. As I have said, 1 Welsh Guards will take on that responsibility for the first three months; after that, the responsibility will fall to 2 Rifles.

David Taylor: How does my right hon. Friend respond to the remarks made by Commander John Muxworthy, the chief executive of the United Kingdom National Defence Association, that the Ministry of Defence would be
	"heaving a sigh of relief"
	if no more troops were required in Kosovo, because the British armed forces are in chronic crisis?

Bob Ainsworth: I would respond by saying that this is a deployment that has been prepared for, and a commitment that we have known about. It started on 1 January and, to date, there has been no requirement for the reserve to be deployed. Let us all hope that that situation pertains, but I do not think that my hon. Friend or anyone else in the House would deny the fact that our forces have played an extremely positive role in Kosovo and in the wider former Yugoslav republic over a period of time. People will recognise the capability that we have been able to put in there, and the considerable effect that that has had over the past few years in helping to stabilise that part of the world.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but what efforts are he and his colleagues making to ensure that other European nations hold to their commitments and realise that, due to our commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, it is possible that they might be asked to do more?

Bob Ainsworth: As my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members know, there is an ongoing debate to try to ensure burden sharing across NATO. We are trying to achieve that to the maximum possible degree, taking into account not only our NATO allies' preparedness to deploy in various places—whether in Afghanistan or Kosovo—but their capability to do so. We ought to be enormously proud of the fact that this country has a very real military capability that we have been able to use very effectively in the Balkans. We have accepted responsibility for this deployment as part of that. As I have already said, it is shared with Italy and Germany, which will take turns to be able to provide the reserve capability. It has not been called on for the first three months of this year. Let us hope that it will not be necessary to provide it, but our people stand ready and able to undertake the deployment, should it become so.

Liam Fox: Russia's new President, Mr. Medvedev, visited Belgrade twice during his campaign to show solidarity with the Serbs over Kosovo. Russia's newly appointed ambassador to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, has warned that Russia could use military force if the situation in Kosovo worsened. What assessment have the Government made of how the new Russian Government might affect the security situation in Kosovo?

Bob Ainsworth: We conduct those ongoing assessments, along with our NATO allies, and we can only hope that the Russians will play a constructive part in exerting the very real influence that they have on the Serb side of the reaction to Kosovo. Let us hope that everybody plays a constructive role and that peace prevails, so that we do not need to deploy the reserve force and the transition to the new status in Kosovo takes place in a peaceful manner.

Liam Fox: It was no secret that the date on which Kosovo was expected to declare independence would fall in the early part of 2008, yet the Government did not make an arrangement with any other NATO country to provide troops for the operational reserve force. If, as many worry, the security situation worsens and we have to deploy British troops to the area, it will have an impact on our armed forces. At a time when roughly 20 per cent. of the British armed forces are deployed overseas, is not that just another example of the Government failing to plan properly and our allies failing to carry their share of the burden fairly?

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman would listen—I have said that there are 18,000 NATO troops in Kosovo. The commitment was long expected and planned for; and throughout the run-up to what has subsequently happened in Kosovo we knew that from 1 January we would have to meet the commitment, should it become necessary and be required. That was part of our planning assumptions. We are now three months into the year, and it has not been necessary yet—let us hope that it does not become necessary. Should the deployment be necessary, however, we have the ability and we have done the planning in order to be able to meet our commitments, and we will do precisely that.

Iraq

Douglas Carswell: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

Des Browne: The security situation in Iraq varies from province to province. Although levels of violence remain unacceptably high in some provinces, the security situation in Iraq improved significantly over the course of 2007. In and around Baghdad, violence has reduced to levels not seen since 2005. In the south, the security situation remains relatively stable, following the successful transfer of security responsibility for Basra province to the Iraqi authorities in December. We continue to work with the Iraqis and our coalition partners to develop further the capacity of the Iraqi security forces and to consolidate the solid progress to date, underpinned by various economic development initiatives that we are undertaking in the south.

Douglas Carswell: Yet another British serviceman was killed in Iraq last week. There is widespread concern that rockets being used to kill our servicemen are, in fact, made in Iran. Is that true?

Des Browne: Of course I would like to take this opportunity, as have other hon. Members, to express my sympathy and condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the RAF sergeant who was killed in that dreadful incident on Friday. Recently, there has been an increase in indirect fire attacks against our forces in Basra, but they are still at a significantly lower level than they were last summer. We now deploy quite significant resources to protect those troops deployed in the contingency operating base from such attacks.
	I am unable to say whether, specifically in relation to that attack, those missiles were thought to have been manufactured in Iran, but I can say—there is undoubted evidence—that in the past we have interdicted equipment, particularly weapons, which have clearly been manufactured in Iran. As I understand it, they are more likely to have been an improvised explosive device than of the missile variety. Over the past few days, President Ahmadinejad of Iran has visited Iraq and been welcomed there. There is no question but that, because of the geography of that part of the world, the Iranians will have a continuing and significant influence on Iraq—never mind the history of those two countries. My message to the Iranians—

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I must stop the Secretary of State there.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will know that, last week, we were pleased to welcome six Iraqi trade unionists to the House of Commons, and they all talked about improved security. There were two women among them—one from Basra, one from Baghdad—and they were concerned about the continuing intimidation of and threats against women. Next time my right hon. Friend meets the leadership in Iraq, will he please impress on them the importance of saying that women in Iraq must be protected against threats and intimidation and that they have a role to play in the future of the country?

Des Browne: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and her consistent support of trade unionists, women and others in Iraq over a long period—long before many others wanted to be engaged in that country. Her point is well made; I have made it in previous meetings with the Iraqi Government, and will seek an early opportunity to do so again. Although violence has decreased in Basra, there is some evidence of continuing violence against women. It is hopeful that General Jalil, who is in charge of the police, has identified that as a priority. I will continue to support him in that through our forces.

Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind our military commitments in Iraq and elsewhere, and the Army's lack of medium-weight vehicles, will the Secretary of State confirm that future rapid effect system vehicle design will be based on current and foreseeable future operational requirements, and that recent lessons regarding troop protection will not be forgotten?

Des Browne: I give the hon. Lady that assurance with regard to the design of the FRES, particularly its hull, to which she alludes and which is most important. Valuable lessons have been learned, as can be seen in the improvement of the vehicles supplied over the past couple of years, and will be taken into account.

Pay Settlement

Jim Sheridan: What factors he took into account in determining the recent pay settlement for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Ainsworth: Pay rates for UK service personnel are recommended by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which bases its recommendations on a wide range of factors. The Government accepted in full its recommendations, which will be implemented with effect from 1 April 2008.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Is he content that the recent pay award will improve recruitment and retention in our armed forces? Is he also content that the views and aspirations of our armed forces are reflected accurately under the current structure, particularly in the lower ranks?

Bob Ainsworth: The increases provided for by the pay review body this year will include not only the 2.6 per cent. but the addition of the X factor to increase the remuneration of the lower ranks by about 3.5 per cent. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that that is on top of the 9 per cent. for the lower ranks provided for last year. The operational bonus will also increase by 3.6 per cent. In addition, the retention packages for certain pinch-point trades will be continued to try to maintain skills in those areas where they are most needed. The package will be welcomed by the armed forces, including the lower ranks, and adds to what we achieved last year.

Topical Questions

Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities.

Des Browne: As Secretary of State for Defence, my departmental responsibilities are to make and execute defence policy, to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they need to achieve success in their military tasks at home and abroad, and to ensure that they are ready to respond to the tasks that might arise in future.

Julian Brazier: I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, as an ex-Territorial, that we are four weeks from the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Territorial Army. Between Lord Kitchener writing them off as a town clerks army in 1915, and Sir Henry Wilson, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff, trying to disband them in 1918, they formed almost half the fighting units in the first world war and won 77 Victoria Crosses in the process. Can I urge today's Government to bear in mind the huge potential that the Territorials still have, including providing fighting units, not just specialists, and gap-filling for their regular counterparts?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is consistent in his support for the Territorial Army, and he knows of my admiration for it. When I visit the operational theatres I always make a point of spending time with those who are deployed there, and I know that they are very proud of their service. Interestingly, our post-appointment interviews suggest that the effect of Territorial Army members' deployment is that they want more of it. I am very impressed by the job that they do, and I know that the regular soldiers who work with them are as well.

Eric Joyce: During the past week I have been privileged to speak to a number of veterans in my constituency, and one of the subjects that they wanted to discuss was burden sharing in southern Afghanistan. Will my right hon. Friend give his assessment of the current direction of travel in that respect?

Des Browne: Our military have done an excellent job. There has been a focus on the job they have been doing over the past few days, and I think that the understanding of the people of this country has improved. They have a sense of the nature of the task and the skills being deployed, and also of the effect that those skills have had: the Taliban have been significantly affected. We hope to be able to construct the other elements of what is necessary to rebuild that part of Afghanistan, which has not seen proper governance for the best part of 25 or 30 years.

Nick Harvey: Are Ministers able to update the House on recruitment to the services? Are they alarmed that the rate of drop-out from basic Army training has jumped from a quarter to a third? Will they confirm that there is a shortfall in manpower among recruiting staff? Given that the most recent figures show—again—that the number of people leaving the forces exceeds those coming in, is not recruitment from the Commonwealth rather saving the day? What are Ministers doing to improve the situation?

Bob Ainsworth: I am not trying to suggest that we do not face challenges, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the current level of recruitment is 96.9 per cent. of the required level. The drop-out rate in the services is lower than that in many other areas of employment, and certainly much lower than that in industry in civilian life.
	Of course we need to do more: we need to do as much as we can on retention. We have packages to cover certain pinch-point trades that we badly need to keep the skills in the armed forces. Our task is challenging, but I think that the pay review body's award and the morale of the armed forces will enable us to maintain recruitment at sustainable levels in the near future.

John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best investment that we can make in our armed forces in order to ensure the continuation of recruitment, retention and future capability is in training—not just training for service life, but training that will equip our servicemen and servicewomen throughout their working life? Does he think that the defence training review and the military academy at St. Athan will achieve that?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes his point for his own reasons—

Liam Fox: Yet again.

Bob Ainsworth: Yet again, as the hon. Gentleman says.
	Of course training plays an important part in recruitment and retention, but I think it should be recognised that it has a far wider purpose. I do not think that the importance of its role in military life is appreciated in civilian life. When the military have to act they have to get it right, and their training must therefore be first-class and extensive. The defence training review should put us on a better footing, and that includes the provisions made at St. Athan in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Bob Spink: Like other hon. Members, I have visited Basra and Baghdad, and I have heard incoming fire very early in the mornings. Progress is being made in Basra to harden troops' canteens and living facilities, but when will we start to make progress in hardening defences for our troops in their sleeping accommodation? Will the Secretary of State give us an undertaking that he will start that process, so that we can give our troops in Basra more protection from incoming rockets?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the need for hardened accommodation, but there are many other ways of improving security for troops against that threat. Changes have been made—I will not go into detail, but I would be happy to let the hon. Gentleman have a private briefing if he wishes—that have significantly improved the personal security of sleeping troops. The changes proved to be very effective against a recent missile strike.

Bernard Jenkin: We welcome Prince Harry back from Afghanistan and celebrate the achievements of the British military there, but we must avoid missing the big picture, which is that there is strategic confusion in Afghanistan. We have no UN co-ordinator, there is a divided command chain, several allies have different caveats on their armed forces and there is little evidence that the aid effort will have a long-term impact on the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. When will these matters be resolved? Will they be addressed at the Bucharest summit?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify those as the priorities on Afghanistan. It is crucial that the leadership of the international community in the form of a UN special representative be appointed sooner rather than later to give coherence to the international community. It is regrettable that a previous appointment fell apart in the way it did. The other points that he made are also important and it is to be hoped that we will make significant progress at or about the time of the Bucharest summit on those points, all of which identify priorities of the Government on Afghanistan.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In my constituency we obviously welcome the two new aircraft carriers and the six Type 45 destroyers, not least because VT Shipbuilding will be playing, and does play, a large part in their construction. However, will the Minister elaborate on how the orders are consistent with the maritime industrial strategy?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend points to an important issue. We need not only to maintain our capability for today and the immediate future by the provision of capability for, in this case, the Royal Navy, but to maintain the capability to produce new ships, which is exactly what the defence industrial strategy and, in this case, the maritime industrial strategy are all about. Of course we need the maximum efficiency to provide the best possible equipment for our Navy and armed forces, but we have made a commitment to all three naval bases, including, of course, Portsmouth.

Andrew Robathan: Further to the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), will the Secretary of State tell the House specifically the shortfall in infantry battalions, whether it is caused by an inability to recruit the right calibre of young men or by the flood of young officers and other ranks leaving the Army, and to which Government policies he ascribes the shortfall?

Bob Ainsworth: There is no shortfall of infantry battalions. The Conservatives have made a commitment to increase the number of infantry battalions—we are all aware of that—but plan to do so without increasing defence spending. If they are to increase the number of infantry battalions by three, the natural corollary of that is that they will cut the size of either the Navy or the RAF. It is up to the hon. Gentleman and his party to tell us what they would do.

David Heath: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I recently visited RNAS—Royal Naval Air Station—Yeovilton, and I pay tribute to the helicopter squadrons who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Lynx aircraft, however, plays a crucial operational role for our surface fleet, and it is reaching the end of its flying life. Will the Minister confirm when he expects to sign the contracts for the future Lynx project?

Bob Ainsworth: We are not yet ready to make any announcements on the future Lynx project, or on any other possible future projects under consideration.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the appropriate Minister give an unequivocal commitment that future FRES vehicles, which have, of course, to be air-transportable, will have monocoque V-shaped hulls, which deflect blasts, leaving the vehicle repairable after it has experienced an explosion? That is critical to the safety of our armed services personnel.

Des Browne: I fully understand how important the hon. Gentleman's point is—and he knows why. In answer to an earlier question, I made it clear that I would expect the design of the hull to take account of our learning experience over the past two years in particular. I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box the unequivocal undertaking he seeks, but he can rest assured that I consider the shape of the hull to be extremely important to the safety of the vehicle.

Julian Lewis: In order for the Government to fulfil their 2004 commitment for a fleet with 25 frigates and destroyers and eight submarines, they need to order eight Type 45 destroyers and eight Astute class submarines. Do they intend to do so?

Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have ordered six Type 45 destroyers. We have made no commitment yet to hulls seven and eight, and we are not ready to make any announcement on that. If the hon. Gentleman had followed what is said in  Hansard rather than what he hoped was said, he would know that back in December I told him that the plan was eventually for there to be seven Astute class submarines, not eight.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister for the Armed Forces confirm that the costs of the joint strike fighter are now ballooning out of control, and that it will be impossible to achieve the original number that the Ministry of Defence was to order?

Des Browne: As I said earlier in answer to another question on the JSF, that programme is developing. We are working closely with the United States to monitor the programme, and although we do not intend to order production aircraft, when we are satisfied that the aircraft's development has matured sufficiently and that it is affordable, we will place the order. Currently, we are committed to the JSF providing the joint combat aircraft for the carrier force.

Stephen Hammond: What progress has the Department made on reaching a common position with the Americans on the eradication of opium poppy farms so that the men involved in that are not driven into the hands of the Taliban?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows our Government's policy on opium production in southern Afghanistan, which is to drive forward on a number of pillars of the counter-narcotics strategy that we share with all our allies and coalition partners, including the United States of America. We have made significant progress in Afghanistan more widely than just in the south by increasing significantly the number of poppy-free provinces, but it continues to be an important part of our policy on the eradication of opium in southern Afghanistan that alternative livelihoods are available to farmers.

Point of Order

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As all Members know, the Government have said on a number of occasions that the police pay award cannot be honoured in full because it would be inflationary, and that any pay increase would be eaten up by inflation. On the back of that, I tabled a written question to the Chancellor asking what effect paying the police 1.9 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. would have on the official inflation rate, to try to tease out from the Government exactly what the inflationary impact would be. I received a reply from a Minister, which did not address the question at all. It merely stated:
	"The Government are committed to continuing to support public sector workers in their efforts to deliver the best possible public services."—[ Official Report, 6 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 1197W.]
	I therefore tabled the following question to calculate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to assist the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is not a point of order, and that it is not a matter for me as I have no responsibility for the perceived quality of a Minister's reply. Therefore, I cannot take this matter any further.

Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) (No. 8)

Jim Murphy: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 28th January be further amended as follows—
	(1) in paragraph (1) for 'the first business is' substitute 'the business includes',
	(2) in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 9—
	(a) in the second column, for 'Clauses 3 to 7' substitute 'Clause 3, the Schedule, and Clauses 4 and 5', and
	(b) in the third column, add '6 hours after commencement',
	(3) in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 10—
	(a) in the second column, for 'Clauses 3 to 7, so far as not completed on Allotted Day 9' substitute 'Clauses 6 to 7, and any selected amendments to Clause 8 other than those making commencement contingent on a referendum', and
	(b) in the third column, for 'The moment of interruption' substitute '6 hours after commencement', and
	(4) in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 11—
	(a) in the second column, for 'Clause 8, the Schedule, New Clauses and New Schedules' substitute '(1) remaining proceedings on Clause 8, and (2) New Clauses and New Schedules', and
	(b) in the third column, for 'The moment of interruption' substitute '(1) 6 hours after commencement, and (2) 15 minutes after commencement'.
	The motion does three things in response to concerns about the scrutiny of clauses 3 to 8. First, it provides certainty for the House by protecting a full six hours of debate on each of the three days of debate this week. The time is protected against any statements or urgent questions—such matters have arisen on five occasions during Committee days thus far. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) in his place—he is in a different place from normal, but Conservative Members move around to make it appear that there are more of them. He has asked on a number of occasions whether day 10 and in particular day 11 could have a protected number of hours of business, saying that he would be grateful if Ministers tabled a provision to that effect. I congratulate him on the influence that he has brought to bear in ensuring that just that has happened.
	Secondly, the motion structures a division of time over the three days to ensure that sufficient time is given to discuss the clauses of most interest to the House—that is the case with clause 8 and its hook for the discussion of a referendum, and with clause 6, which covers the amending provision and new oversight powers for Parliament.

Bob Spink: Following this weekend's astounding referendum results, does the Minister not believe that it is now necessary to extend debate on the referendum question? Perhaps we ought also to debate the issue on Thursday so that we could explore why, for instance, Maria Hutchings's superb campaign in Eastleigh did so well in getting that referendum result.

Jim Murphy: We are not tempted by that approach. I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman in the same way as I encouraged the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who has a different view from him—the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) wishes to see us out of Europe altogether.

Mark Harper: I thought that the Minister was going to say that I had a different view about the timing. I had said that I was grateful to the Minister and the Government for having listened and for having at least protected the six hours of debate. In an intervention on the Deputy Leader of the House, I pointed out that the debate on the referendum was to be on a Wednesday, and that if we carried on we would have many hours free in the evening to debate the matter at length.

Jim Murphy: The business of the House motion guarantees a certain number of hours of debate, as the hon. Gentleman requested. The third thing that it sets out to do is to provide an opportunity at the end of day 11 for a new clause to be moved, protecting that possibility without encroaching on the time available for the referendum debate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am always impressed with the Minister's tact and charm. I have tabled an amendment for Wednesday, but as that is a busy day for some of us would he like to be really tactful and allow me to debate my amendment earlier?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Jim Murphy: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that our affection for one another's tact, diplomacy and guile is mutual? As she is aware, the timing of the discussion of amendments is, of course, a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Nicholas Winterton: In the light of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)—that an overwhelming majority of the people who voted in the constituencies where referendums were held opted to support the holding of a referendum on the treaty—is it too late for the Government to recognise that the people of this country deserve a vote on the matter, and to decide that they will, after all, grant a referendum?

Jim Murphy: In my constituency, fewer than one in six of the electorate voted for a referendum. The timetable set out for this week, which builds on the first programme motion, sets aside three days, which represents the same number of days of debate as on the Committee stage of the Bill implementing the treaty of Nice. We have already had eight full days of debate.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I will not agree on whether there should be a referendum, but I disagree with his assertion that Britain would be better off out of the European Union. I do not disrespect him, but I disagree with his view, which I accept he holds strongly.

Mark Pritchard: I know that the Minister always likes to be transparent with the House: when he said that one in six people in his constituency voted for a referendum, he was referring to the sample rather than the percentage of those who voted. He will know that, in his constituency, more than 85 per cent. of those one in six people who were sampled wanted a referendum on the treaty. Are the Government not failing democracy when the people of this country have to take direct action, only a few hundred yards from Parliament, because the Government have reneged on their promises on the EU reform treaty?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows his constituency better than I do, and I hope that he would accept that all hon. Members know their own constituencies better than any other Member. In my constituency, more people voted for the failed Conservative candidate at the last election than in the process that we have just been through. Of course, the process cost nearly £50,000.
	I shall return to the business motion, because I do not think that you would thank us for going much wider, Mr. Speaker.

Peter Lilley: If the turnout in local elections in the Minister's and other constituencies falls below that achieved in the recent voluntary polls, do the Government propose to ignore the outcome?

Jim Murphy: The place to make decisions is in this Chamber, not in a crane in the sky above London. This Chamber will decide later this week whether it is right to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, in the same way that it decided whether there should be referendums on the treaties of Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam.

William Cash: Does the Minister agree that, when he mentions the Nice, Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, he ignores an issue that we shall debate shortly: the amalgamation of all those treaties into one? To say that there is no need for us to examine the whole, and that we need only examine individual treaties, is to deny what the Government are saying in their own proposals and about the mandate.

Jim Murphy: No, the mandate is clear, and has been clear on each day of the debate. Every Government of the European Union has agreed that the constitutional approach has been abandoned. That view has been accepted by Governments on the left, centre-left, centre and centre-right of European politics.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now at the stage of debating the issues, which is not what this motion is about.

Jim Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your encouragement.

Gisela Stuart: I absolutely agree with the Minister when he says that all of us know our constituencies better than anyone else does. Given that the Government are not inclined to allow a referendum, could the party Whips at least give Members a free vote?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is beyond the scope of the business motion.

Jim Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall return to the business motion.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Minister, and I promise him that this will be the last time that I intervene on him; he has been most generous in giving way. If he were to allow the debate this week to extend into Thursday, so that we had more time, we could explore how the referendums this weekend had a greater turnout than many EU elections in this country.

Jim Murphy: I will not hold the hon. Gentleman to his assertion that that was the last time that he will intervene on me today; no hon. Member believes that to be the case.

Bob Spink: In this debate.

Jim Murphy: I accept that it is probably the last in this debate; I have only one paragraph left of my comments in moving the rather narrow business motion.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that a fundamentally different situation now faces us in that, if the desire of the Liberal Democrats is upheld, we will be effectively making a decision based on two referendums? Should he not take that into account, so that we can extend the time, to debate both fully?

Jim Murphy: As I am against holding one referendum, it will hardly come as a surprise to my hon. Friend to learn that I am against holding two referendums. We are not tempted by that approach, and I have set out a business motion that protects the time on each day available to the House this week. We have been flexible.

James Clappison: So that we can determine how much time will be required and given what the Minister has said about what has taken place already, does he accept that much of what he has described as debate has, in fact, been very general debate on subjects connected with the treaty but not detailed scrutiny of its provisions? Does he accept that, for example, we have had no detailed scrutiny so far of the treaty's provisions on defence, which is a very important subject in the treaty?

Jim Murphy: The total number of days available for the House to discuss the Lisbon treaty and the Bill to enact it has been the same as for the treaties of Nice and Amsterdam and the Single European Act.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: I am spoilt for choice.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister always makes comparisons with treaties that were much shorter and much less controversial, but does he not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)? The Minister makes great play of the time that we have taken so far, but it has been largely taken up at the Government's insistence with general debates on European issues that have gone very wide of the treaty of Lisbon? The debates have been very familiar to many hon. Members; they have been about the merits and otherwise of various aspects of our European policy. Does he not agree that this experiment has been a failure and that we should have debated the amendments tabled by those hon. Members who, unlike me, disagree with the treaty's contents?

Jim Murphy: Of course, on these issues of substance and on some of the policy issues that relate to Europe, I find myself at common cause with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the fact is that the structured approach that we have taken to each day was contained in the programme motion and the principle was in both the Government's motion and Conservative Front Benchers' motion. Although, of course, the Conservatives demanded more days, they nevertheless suggested their own set of proposals along this structured approach.

John Gummer: But does not the Minister understand how difficult he is making things, even for those of us who support the treaty of Lisbon? To have a debate on the treaty of Lisbon that excludes a debate on the treaty's effect on defence is not to have a complete debate on the treaty. Similarly, would he not be in a stronger position if he had spoken out against holding a referendum in the first place, as some of us did, instead of supporting a referendum when that was convenient and now opposing a referendum when that is convenient? Is it not better to be against referendums always?

Jim Murphy: I hope that it does not unsettle the right hon. Gentleman if I disagree with him. Where there is an issue of substantial constitutional significance—for example, if we were ever to consider joining the euro—there is a case for consulting the public in a referendum, as we did when we established devolution in Scotland and Wales. Those are substantial, lasting constitutional changes, and I agree that there is, on occasion, a place for a referendum.

Mark Francois: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have to get back to the business of the House motion.

Mark Francois: My point is on the motion.

Mr. Speaker: I know that it will be; I am trying to tell the Minister that we have to get back to the motion.

Jim Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I know that you will accept that I am simply responding to the interventions that I take. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). It is perhaps the last time that I shall give way, as I want to conclude the one paragraph that I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Castle Point.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way. My point is directly about the motion, Mr. Speaker. The Minister asserted that when we debated the original business of the House motion, we consented to the Government's procedure in principle, but we did not. Let me read him what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said on that point, in response to an intervention on the topic:
	"We certainly do not agree with the motion, and we will vote against it. We will, of course, vote for our amendment, not because we agree with any of the procedures involved but because we wish to propose an amendment that ought to be acceptable to the Government and that would address many of Members' concerns about the time available for consideration of amendments. We are no fans of the procedure employed in the motion or of the constraints that it sets on debate."—[ Official Report, 28 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 61.]
	That sets the record straight. We did not favour the Government's methodology, and we still do not.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his own way. The fact is that the Conservatives tabled a substantive amendment to the business of the House motion—an amendment with its own structure and its own purpose, and which included provision for themed debates. If I may conclude—

Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I upset my hon. Friend once more?

Jim Murphy: Only if it is just a little.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that it was the Government who proposed the procedure; other people opposed it. The Government radically changed the way in which we are handling the Bill. That may be a good thing or a bad thing—in my view, it is an extraordinarily bad, selfish and rather unimaginative thing to do—but he should be proud of what he has done, because it was the Government's decision not to have amendments tabled in the normal way, not to proceed in the normal way, and to limit the discussion.

Jim Murphy: Of course the procedure was recommended by the Government, but it was decided on by the House, which came to its conclusion on 28 January, agreeing to the motion with a substantial majority.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: I shall conclude my remarks—my one paragraph. We have varied the motion on six occasions. On each of those occasions we responded to the amendments tabled and extended the time available for detailed debate. Today's motion makes good the further undertaking that I gave the House that we would be flexible and would secure sufficient protected time to debate clauses 3 to 8. With that, I commend the motion to the House.

Mark Francois: The Minister referred to the previous business of the House motion, so I shall do so too, if I may. I wish to begin by explaining with what part of today's Government business of the House motion we agree. The motion in effect divides up the time for the three remaining days of Committee, and protects the business. The Minister will recall—in fact, he mentioned the matter in his opening remarks—that when we debated the original business of the House motion on 28 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) noticed, in his usual eagle-eyed way, that the time for day 11, allocated to discussion of the referendum, was not protected. He repeatedly pressed the Minister to give an assurance that it would be protected. In fairness, the Minister undertook to consider that, and today's motion does indeed protect the time for the debate; we should acknowledge that.
	However, there is much that is wrong with the motion. For instance, the House will recall that when we debated the original motion, we objected to the Government's methodology in relation to the debate, and sought more time to debate specific amendments. We also argued for at least six extra days of debate to match the figure of 20 days that the Government have repeatedly floated in the media. We asked for a day on which to debate the defence implications of Lisbon—a point that we subsequently pressed repeatedly at business questions—given that the defence amendments were not touched on at all. Unfortunately, the motion does not allow any extra time for the important topic of defence to be debated in detail, and that is to be deprecated.

William Cash: As the amendments relating to defence were tabled in my name, I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and—this is unusual, but welcome—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Although we disagree about certain aspects of the treaty, we agree that the defence issue has not been discussed. Our boys out in Afghanistan and Iraq are at risk as result of some of the provisions of this treaty.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. In the run-up to these debates, the Government repeatedly said in the media that their strategy was to divide the Conservative party on Europe. As has been said, they have succeeded in unifying my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), which is more than we have managed to do for years.

John Gummer: rose—

Mark Francois: Don't spoil it.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend point out that some of us want a debate on defence in order to show that the treaty will help our boys in Afghanistan and elsewhere? If we do not have a chance to say it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is going wide of the business motion.

Mark Francois: As has been said, we really did want that extra day on defence.
	It has emerged that we have the rest of today to debate just four amendments, whereas we will have six hours tomorrow to debate many more amendments. That will hopefully include our important amendment No. 20, which would not wreck the treaty, because it is procedural. It would amend the Bill so that no further vetoes could be given up under the so-called ratchet clause without an Act of Parliament. I raise that question because previous experience of debating this Bill does not set an encouraging precedent for being able to debate everything, not least because of the Government's deliberate ploy of using so-called themed debates to eat up time that would otherwise be available to debate specific, detailed amendments.
	On day one in Committee of the whole House, when we debated justice and home affairs, there were three groups of amendments. We only managed to debate the first group, and we did not discuss any of the important amendments concerning borders, visas, asylum and immigration. On day four, the theme was the single market. There were four groups of amendments, but we only reached the first group, so we did not touch on subjects such as social policy, the free movement of workers and intellectual property rights.
	On day five, as a number of hon. Members have said, we debated foreign, security and defence policy. That night there were three groups of amendments, and again, only the first group was reached. The treaty includes proposals on creating military structures that could rival NATO, a mutual defence guarantee and an armaments agency, but none of the amendments relating to defence were considered. I reiterate that we have repeatedly pressed the Government at business questions to allow us to debate defence, but the motion does not reflect that request.

James Clappison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee's analysis of the defence provisions of the treaty identified five important changes introduced by the treaty? The Committee found one change in which the Government's wording, which was taken directly from the treaty, was ambiguous and needed clarification. None of those matters has been debated, although they are important to this country's defence.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has scrutinised the treaty in detail, and as usual he has made an important point. The Government said that there were only 50 vetoes, but on the day of the foreign policy and defence debate, they released an answer saying, "Oops! Sorry! There are 51 vetoes, and the extra one relates to defence." We did not get an opportunity to debate that, either.
	On day six in Committee of the whole House, we debated international development. There were two groups of amendments, and we actually reached the second group for five minutes.

Kenneth Clarke: This is yet another motion that slightly amends the timetable. Although my hon. Friend has acknowledged that that involves meeting hon. Members' desire to protect the time for the referendum debate, how far are the Government consulting the usual channels? Were Conservative Front Benchers or Liberal Democrat Front Benchers approached about this latest motion, and was there an attempt to agree it? Surely the point of timetabling in this House is to enable the maximum opportunity for debate involving the widest range of opinions in order to achieve proper scrutiny. Have the Government presented yet another unsolicited business motion, or was there at least an attempt to reach an agreement first?

Mark Francois: As an ex-Whip, I have learned never to comment in the Chamber on any discussions through the usual channels; that is always safest career-wise. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend will know that we asked repeatedly at business questions for an extra day to be added for debating defence. That request was made almost ad nauseam, but unfortunately the Government have not complied with it. It is disappointing that we have not been allowed to debate defence.

Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Francois: I shall do so only briefly, because I would like to move on to a related point.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure that my hon. Friend should be concerned about his career—he should be concerned about the principle of what we do in the House and our ability to scrutinise.
	I should like to take up the matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) aware that Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, an author of the European constitution and past President of France, has said that the treaty contains all the critical elements of the constitution? Is it not true, therefore, that this business motion is inadequate and does not reflect the best interests of this House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was very wide of the motion under discussion. We are talking about the business motion and the time allowed.

Mark Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way— [Laughter.] I am well aware of Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's comments about the treaty. The one that sticks in my mind is—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman, too, address the motion under debate?

Mark Francois: We will continue the discussion in the Tea Room, but my hon. Friend is entirely right.
	On day seven in Committee, we debated four groups of amendments relating to EU institutions and remaining matters in clause 2. That day, there were four quite large groups of amendments, but we touched only on the first. How can the Government be confident about their business motion given that so far in Committee the Chair has selected 20 groups of amendments, only eight of which have ever been debated—one of them for only five minutes?
	The subjects of borders, visas, asylum, immigration, defence, social policy and free movement of workers have never been debated in detail at all. The Government had hoped that they would be able to get away with the whole process, of which today's motion forms a further part, without anyone outside the House noticing and with no media attention. However, I am pleased to say that they have been unsuccessful. For instance, I doubt whether their motion today will redeem them in the eyes of Simon Carr, who, following the debate on the original business motion, wrote a piece about all this in  The Independent, entitled "Gordon's trickery backfires on him". He noted the Government's methodology for the Committee stage as follows:
	"The Government's promises for unparalleled opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny were, frankly, demolished by both sides...Why was so much time being given to these nebulous themes and so little to amendments?"

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend be careful not to allow the Government to get away with the idea that they have misused the House's arrangements only in respect of the treaty of Lisbon to ensure that there is not proper debate of Bills? There has never been a time when legislation has been so ill-debated, so ill-argued and therefore so ill-produced as since the so-called modernisation that the Government have carried through.

Mark Francois: My right hon. Friend has made a pertinent point, which I wish to reinforce. It is even worse when the Government constrain debate on a treaty to which this country would theoretically be committed for a very long time.
	I doubt whether the Government's motion today will cut much ice with Michael White of  The Guardian. On 22 February, he wrote in that newspaper, in an article entitled, "Lisbon debate rings hollow":
	"Labour's chief whip has persuaded MP's to vote to overrule their own standing orders. Instead of line-by-line debate which explores changes to foreign policy procedures, EU co-operation on crime or energy, at least half of each day is devoted to a 'themed' discussion, with debate on specific amendments tacked on later. Does procedure matter? No one would be allowed to change the rules before a football match or criminal trial."
	I also doubt that today's motion will impress Philip Johnston of  The Daily Telegraph, who, in a piece on 11 February entitled "The debate on the Treaty of Lisbon is a scandal", argued about the procedure for debating treaties as follows:
	"Conventionally, this is done by tabling amendments to specific clauses and debating them in fine detail. But this is not happening and it is a scandal."
	He then went on to note:
	"When Mr. Brown was challenged about this in the Commons last week, he said 'We are considering the European Union (Amendment) Bill day by day in the House of Commons in great detail.' Day by day, but not line by line. The cynicism is breathtaking."

Gwyneth Dunwoody: In view of the unequivocal views quoted by the hon. Gentleman, can he explain why his Front Benchers lay down and allowed the Government to run right over them, and why the Liberals, who made their pathetic little mewling noise last week, have nevertheless continued to co-operate with the Government, who are determined that we should not debate the legislation as opposed to some of the ideas?

Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Lady. We have not lain down at all—we opposed the Government's motion and voted against it; that is why I deliberately read into the record the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.  [ Interruption. ]

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you explain to  Hansard how to put down in the record that last very important contribution by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that that is for the editors of  Hansard to work out for themselves.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Could I just explain that I was waving genteelly in the direction of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the editors of  Hansard will be very grateful for those remarks.

Mark Francois: I am grateful for the gentle wave. I am not accustomed to that from the hon. Lady, but I will take it in the spirit in which it was offered.
	The truth is that this whole process has been rigged from the outset. First, we were promised a referendum on the treaty, and then that promise was broken. Then we were promised 20 days of debate, and that promise was broken too. We have been given only 14 days, which today's motion does not extend and which, according to the Library, represents less than half of the 29 days' debate in the Commons allocated to the treaty of Maastricht. That is why the Minister talks about Nice and Amsterdam but never makes the comparison with Maastricht. We were then promised an opportunity for line-by-line scrutiny of the treaty itself, and even that promise was broken, because the Government came up with a totally new way to debate treaties specifically designed to curtail the detailed scrutiny of the document that they tell the country they are so proud of.

Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend note, too, that a day is not a day in the sense that the public outside understand? It has been reduced to an hour and a half or two and a half hours, and we spent a total of 19 hours on clause 2, which is the guts of the Bill. That bears no comparison with any constitutional measure that we have had on the Floor of the House in the past, and questions the legitimacy of the process.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend, who has, as usual, followed these debates very closely, makes a powerful point. I reiterate: when the Government are comparing treaties, they never like to compare this with Maastricht because they know that that had twice as much debate. Indeed, in those days, a parliamentary day was usually much longer in terms of the time available for debate, so the disparity is even greater if one makes the comparison in hours, as my hon. Friend encourages me to.

Mark Harper: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Francois: I will, but only briefly because I sense that other Members want to speak.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is it not worse than he suggests, because not only have all these promises been broken but the Government have not been completely transparent about how they have done it? They keep repeating that we are allegedly having line-by-line scrutiny, but very little of that time is devoted to looking at the treaty, as it is spent on debating these wide motions.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In days of yore, there used to be an offence of breach of promise, and the Government are most definitely guilty of that now.

William Cash: My hon. Friend will recall that on 20 June, the deceitful manner in which this process has been conducted was initiated by the revelation of the mandate, which is described as binding on all the member states. Furthermore, that mandate, as we shall discuss later, translates the word "Community" into the word "Union", provides a single legal personality, and replaces and succeeds the Community. What is happening during all of these proceedings is happening against the background of a binding mandate that is being imposed on this House, which is why the Government are behaving in the way that they are.

Mark Francois: Again, my hon. Friend is entirely right, and I suspect that he will return to that point briefly later.

Gisela Stuart: The hon. Gentleman may be making a powerful case, but it is also a completely pointless case. Unaccustomed as I am to being helpful to those on my Front Bench during these debates, if I consider the amendments that have been tabled during the limited time we have had, I find that the Opposition have not come up with any ideas, other than, "I don't like what's in the treaty". He should be a bit more positive in the next couple of days.

Mark Francois: The hon. Lady is of course entitled to her view, but if we had had an opportunity to debate a number of those amendments, powerful cases would have been made. Because of the way in which the debate was structured, it was not possible to do so.
	The Government's whole case against a referendum is based on the alternative of detailed parliamentary scrutiny. We have not had detailed parliamentary scrutiny. The Government do not deserve to get away with this, and on Wednesday, hon. and right hon. Members will have a vital opportunity to prevent them from doing so. I shall end, as I have taken quite a lot of interventions, with an editorial from  The Times today, which is entitled "Let The People Speak". It says:
	"Institutional subterfuge, such as that in which the Government has engaged, will do great harm to the reputation of Parliament, will increase the contempt felt for the EU by much of the electorate and make a mockery of the 'new', more inclusive, politics which the Prime Minister insists that he favours."
	We agree. We say that these debates have been rigged from start to finish for the Government's convenience. We say, "Let the people decide".

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I shall speak very briefly. We should be quite clear about what is happening here. This legislation is being guillotined, not programmed. It is being cut short in a most brutal and unhelpful manner. Presumably, that is happening because we are frightened of debating in this Chamber every massive change to the way in which we organise our affairs. The House of Commons has always been jealous of its command of powers over the Government and of the way in which it proceeds through legislation.
	What we are debating has enormously far-ranging implications, and because of the way in which the process has been managed, we are unable to discuss whole fields of affairs that are of enormous importance to our people. For instance, transport is not even mentioned under the arrangements for this so-called programme. The Government are foolish and unwise; they ought to have handled this matter better.
	The thing that depresses me most is that neither the Front Benchers of the official Opposition, nor the unofficial hangers-on, have made the slightest attempt to wreck this legislation in the way that they should, or have been prepared to, despite the artificial noise. Until we do so, we are failing those who sent us here.

Edward Davey: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), or the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but I agree with their opposition to this motion. We disagreed with the original business motion because, as others have said, it curtailed time for this House, and we do not like the Government's overall approach. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh said, it is wrong that we have not had proper time to debate common defence and security policy. Many trenchant views are held in the House on that and it is wrong that we cannot debate it. Other matters, too, have had scant attention.
	I say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that we were not consulted on the business motion. My only discussions—formally and informally—with the Government have been to ask for more time.

Kenneth Clarke: I have long believed that, if we are to have timetabling, which apparently now applies to all Bills, it should essentially be for the Opposition parties to decide how best to use the time on the matters that most concern them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government had said to his Front Benchers and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) that there were three days in which to cover the clauses that we are considering, and had allocated three generous timetables, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties could have reached agreement on how to divide them so that the most important amendments, in the opinion of critics, would take up our time? Instead, we have the Government's best offer of what seems to them to be most convenient and right in dividing up the available time.

Edward Davey: I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We often go through a charade and pretend that the House controls the Government when the Government railroad matters through. We should change the rules to allow the Opposition parties a much greater say. Perhaps we should consider other legislatures, which have business committees and do things differently—in my view, more democratically.
	I made the point to the Minister that we should have extra time—at least an extra day—to debate especially common defence and security policy. If he has a chance to answer the debate, I hope that he will explain why he has been unable to provide that. Not doing so is wrong and undermines the process. As someone who is pro-European and supports the Lisbon treaty, I stress that such actions do not help the Government's case. That is why they are misguided, and really should withdraw the motion and start again.

Peter Lilley: I shall be brief. In compensation for breaking a solemn manifesto pledge to hold a referendum, the Government—the Prime Minister himself—promised that the House would be given an opportunity to debate in Committee, line by line, the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, which effectively incorporates the constitutional treaty on which they promised us a referendum. We have not had that line-by-line consideration. The House has not had—and will not have, if the Government motion is passed—the opportunity to debate a single line of the numerous and important clauses in the treaty that affect immigration, asylum and border control, to consider a single amendment or to take a single vote. In other words, the Prime Minister will break a second promise if the business motion is passed. I find that disgraceful.
	I find it appalling that a Minister who is personally so charming and agreeable can be party to such a duplicitous attempt to prevent the House from having what it was promised.

John Gummer: The Government must think again. There is no doubt that there is much in the Lisbon treaty to debate; there is no doubt that we have not debated it; and there is also no doubt that Oppositions always make that claim, but on this occasion the claim has very serious truth in it.
	The Government promised us line-by-line scrutiny but they have not given us the same length of time as the previous Conservative Government gave the debate on Maastricht. They have made debate difficult with their novel procedure and they have wrongly accused my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) of going along with that procedure when he manifestly did not. They have upset their own supporters, who see that the motion is utterly unfair, and have made Conservative Members who believe in the treaty of Lisbon extremely angry about the process that they have introduced. I hope very much that they will withdraw the motion.

David Drew: Views on the EU and the Lisbon treaty transcend the party political spectrum. There are a number of amendments tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends who wish to discuss the implications for public services. We hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will look on them preferentially, but it seems very unfair that our debate is again being shoehorned into a very short time. There is also the issue of the referendum. As I said in my earlier intervention, we are now, in effect, discussing two referendums. Again, it would be only right and proper—

It being forty-five minutes after commencement  of proceedings  on  the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [28 January].
	 The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill
	 — 
	[9th allotted day]

(Clause 3, the Schedule and Clauses 4 and 5)
	 Further considered in Committee.
	[Sir Michael Lord  in the Chair.]

Clause 3
	 — 
	Changes of terminology

David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 39, page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
	'(c) may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(i) laid before Parliament; and
	(ii) approved by a resolution of each House'.
	Clause 3 is, if one includes the schedule attached to it, the longest part of the Bill. Together they run to some three and a half pages. On that ground alone, it is worth studying in some detail.
	The clause is headed "Changes of terminology", which rather implies that these are technical matters, but I shall, I hope, show that it deals with substantive matters of importance. For instance, the schedule attached to the clause makes nearly 50 amendments to the European Communities Act 1972, the founding Act that has governed our relationship to the European Union ever since that date. Clearly, those are matters of substance.
	One of the purposes of clause 3 and its schedule is to delete references to "European Community" and replace them with "European Union". That is not a technical change; it is a matter of substance, because the two are not the same. To remind the Committee, when we joined the Common Market, as it was then called, there were three treaties: the European Coal and Steel Community treaty signed in 1951; the European Atomic Energy Community treaty, usually known as EURATOM; and the European Economic Community treaty, usually abbreviated to the EEC, set up by the treaty of Rome in 1957. Collectively, those treaties formed what were known as the European Communities.
	Since that time, the coal and steel treaty has expired and is no more. EURATOM still exists but is only of marginal significance—that is not to say that the European Union will not legislate on energy and atomic power; under the additional sections in the treaty of Lisbon, I anticipate that it will pass a great deal more legislation on that, but not through EURATOM. For the purposes of this debate, therefore, we can ignore that treaty.
	A separate treaty on the EU, the Maastricht treaty, renamed the EEC the EC, and crucially, added two intergovernmental pillars, the first dealing with common foreign and security policy, and the second with justice and home affairs. That was a critical and innovative solution, and in my view and that of many of my persuasion, the intergovernmental method of co-operation is to be preferred. It cuts out the monopoly of initiative enjoyed by the European Commission, and does not come under the jurisdiction of the European Court. But it allows for extensive international co-ordination and co-operation in tackling matters of common interest.
	Today, essentially, we have two treaties. We have the EC treaty, derived originally from the treaty of Rome, as then amended by the Single European Act, the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty and so on. Separately, we have the EU treaty from Maastricht, covering the intergovernmental areas.
	The current treaty abolishes the EC. Article 1 of the treaty states:
	"The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community."
	Crucially, however, the EU will also include those previous intergovernmental policy areas that I have described, such as the common foreign and security policy and parts of criminal justice and policing.

Peter Lilley: My right hon. Friend has made an important point. Is he saying that the treaty, and clause 3 in particular, abolishes what was the European Community? Was it not precisely on the claim that the European constitution abolished the former structures and replaced them with a new one that the Government based their promise of a referendum? They said that this treaty did not do that, and that therefore we did not need a referendum. Now my right hon. Friend is saying that the treaty does do that—in which case, surely, the Government's promise of a referendum would have to be reinstated even if we believed in their rather bogus excuse for getting out of it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend is spot on. This treaty does exactly the same as the constitutional treaty: it founds a Union that encapsulates and incorporates all the EC and EU treaties, and indeed establishes a single legal personality for the purpose.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend may not have heard some remarks I made during the last debate about the mandate which—as he knows very well, because he is a fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee—was brought in through the back door, in deceitful circumstances, on 20 June last year. Does he agree that it had the effect not only of replacing the word "Community" with the word "Union"—with, as he said, a single legal personality replacing and succeeding the Community—but of collapsing many of the pillars that he mentioned earlier, thus undermining the whole constitutional basis on which the original arrangements were made? That fundamental change is the reason why we should now have a referendum.

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Michael Lord: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being tempted to extend his remarks rather more widely than the amendment allows. It is quite narrowly drafted.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am well aware of the narrowness of the amendment, Sir Michael, but I wish to put it in the context of what is happening to the EC, as opposed to the EU. As you will see, a large part of clause 3 is concerned with replacing the EC with the EU. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that the two are not the same. Clause 3 attempts something of a three-card trick, making what are apparently name changes but, in fact, changing the substance. The EU will not only replace the EC but include the formerly intergovernmental aspects of common foreign and security policy, criminal justice and policing. Moreover, subsections (4) and (5), which are the subject of my amendment, give the Secretary of State or the Treasury power to
	"make other amendments of Acts or instruments".
	That is quite a wide power. The amendments are not defined or limited, and the power obviously includes power to amend primary and secondary legislation. The amendments must "reflect changes in terminology", but are not limited to such changes.
	We are not simply dealing with changes of name. Just as the change from EC to EU is a matter of substance, other matters of terminology could and, in my view, will entail substantive and material changes.

Kelvin Hopkins: Terms are important, and people understand their significance. We have moved from a common market to a European Economic Community to a European Community to a European Union. Could it not be said that we are not far off becoming a Federated State of Europe?

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a baffling series of name changes, all of them in the wrong direction. In the Convention on the Future of Europe, I—along with some other delegates—suggested yet another name change, but a change in the right direction. We proposed a Europe of democracies. We submitted a minority report to give effect to such a concept, which is essentially intergovernmental. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that names and terms are important. Whichever direction we take, it is vital that the House has the right to scrutinise and authorise the changes when they are made. I commend my rather modest amendment, which would ensure that so-called terminological changes are made by affirmative resolution, giving both Houses an express decision, replacing the negative resolution procedure whereby the changes are made unless they are emphatically blocked.

Gisela Stuart: I am genuinely trying to understand the right hon. Gentleman. Is he arguing that if we do not agree to his amendments to schedule 1 and to some of the name changes, the intergovernmental nature of some of the policy areas that the Government currently feel are protected will lose that protection because we are merging the Community into the Union, so making those policy areas vulnerable? Is that his key point?

David Heathcoat-Amory: No, that is not my argument. The so-called innocuous change from EC to EU is not simply a change of terminology, because the EU incorporates not just the EC, but intergovernmental policy areas such as common foreign and security policy and criminal justice. In the same way, the other changes that the Government may propose to give effect to the treaty in existing UK legislation will also encompass matters of substance and are not simply matters of terminology.
	To demonstrate that, I need to pick up a number of themes that have emerged in the debates so far. The first point is that the treaty is almost the same as the European constitution, which failed at the hands of the French and Dutch electorates. That observation is now not seriously contested by Ministers. There are a few apologists from the Labour Back Benches who occasionally pretend that they are two different treaties but the Select Committee reports are decisive on this. When the Prime Minister says that the constitutional approach has been abandoned, he must know that that refers only to the form of the treaties rather than to their substance. The constitutional treaty brought the two treaties into a single document; the present one simply amends the two existing treaties without formally merging them. In substance and legal effect, however, the two treaties are the same.

John Gummer: My right hon. Friend is making the case that the use of the word "Union" and the change in terminology have greater importance than they are given. At the same time, however, he is trying to make the case that it is not of great importance to cease to have a constitution and to have instead a treaty. I should have thought that he would agree that to have a treaty between sovereign nations rather than a constitution is a fundamental difference, even though I agree that the Government's promise on a referendum certainly did not contain that caveat.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I judge treaties and constitutions by their substance and effect. It is now indisputable that the substance of the treaty of Lisbon is in almost all cases the same as that of the constitutional treaty. That was the conclusion of the European Scrutiny Committee and that of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in so far as it looked into the foreign policy implications of the treaty. That is good enough for me. It may be a coincidence that I serve on both of those Committees, but I did support their conclusions; both, of course, have Labour Chairmen and majorities. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that they are the same document in legal effect.
	It follows from that that the many amendments that the Government tabled to the constitutional treaty during the Convention on the Future of Europe also apply to the treaty of Lisbon. As most of their amendments failed, it also follows that many unamended parts of the treaty are not to the Government's liking, and also that any changes that the Government might seek to make to existing United Kingdom laws by using this part of the Bill are not to their liking either as they were the subject of failed British Government amendments. That is an additional reason for them to be closely scrutinised by the Committee on a case-by-case basis according to the affirmative procedure.
	My next theme is that this treaty is not a reform treaty, despite its earlier name. The Laeken declaration of December 2001 set in train a reform process. It recognised that decision making in the EU was remote, that the whole procedure had lost the confidence of the public, that the treaties were too complex and not democratic enough, and that the EU was interfering too minutely in the lives of ordinary citizens. Instead of following that reform instruction, the Convention on the Future of Europe consolidated more powers in the very institutions that were the cause of the disillusionment in the first place, and where reforming amendments were tabled, such as to the EU budget, they were ignored. It follows from that that the UK Bills to be amended in accordance with this clause will not reflect the reform process that the British Government supported. It is also worth noting that much of the UK legislation to be amended was passed some years ago when genuine reform of the EU was in prospect. Therefore, when the House passed provisions in those Bills referring to the European Union, it might have confidently expected that the relevant sections of the treaty concerned would be reformed, instead of which reform has been ignored and powers have been consolidated at the EU.
	My next theme is, therefore, the failure of subsidiarity. Not only has the reform process taken more powers upwards, but the subsidiarity principle is not working. That principle dictates that the EU can act only if the objective or policy cannot be achieved adequately at national level. That has been in treaty law since 1993, but it has not been an effective check on the EU's activities. Examples have been given in previous debates of how even the exchange of best practice at EU level has been thought sufficient to justify EU action. Nor has the European Court of Justice been an effective check on subsidiarity. How could it be, as it is itself an EU institution? It is part of the project, and under the treaty of Lisbon matters will get worse as it will be required by treaty law to practise "mutual sincere cooperation" with the other institutions of the EU. Therefore, the subsidiarity check for national Parliaments, which is supposedly a new feature of the treaty of Lisbon, is something of a sham.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the extension of exclusive or shared competences turns the whole question of subsidiarity inside out, because national Parliaments will not be able to legislate, by statutory instrument or otherwise, in the spheres in which those competences are being granted, and that this is therefore just a monumental con trick?

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to say that if the treaty is ratified, subsidiarity will be overtaken by the new division of powers in the treaty. One of the reasons why the Lisbon treaty is a constitutional treaty is because it attempts a division of powers between member states and the EU institutions—that is inescapably a constitutional matter. Such a provision is found in the United States constitution, which enumerates states' rights as against those of the federal Government. The Lisbon treaty attempts to do exactly the same, in a way that is almost entirely in the EU's favour. The definition of "exclusive competence"—that list is longer—will completely prevent any legislation by member states in areas where it applies. Even the definition of a "shared competence" will prevent member states from legislating if the EU moves into the area where it applies. It is a funny definition of sharing, which in practice will simply allow member states a residual competence. The arrangement will overwhelm any attempt to enforce the subsidiarity principle.

James Clappison: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In his long experience of European matters, is he aware of any area in which the EU has evacuated a shared competence and handed it back to member states?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, may I say to him that he is going wide of his quite tightly drawn amendment? I do not intend to stop him, but I trust that if he is making points that should be made during the clause stand part debate, he will not seek to make them again then.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I can directly relate this matter to the amendment, Sir Michael, because the amendments permitted under subsections (4) and (5) will reflect the new division of powers and sharing of competences in the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was right: although the Laeken declaration suggested that some powers might be returned to member states, I can think of no example of where that has happened. Things have gone entirely in the opposite direction—the ratchet has operated upwards and never downwards—and it therefore follows that the amendments to "Acts or instruments" will reflect the new division of powers. We know that this House disapproves of that division; it was stated many times in debates leading up to the treaty that even the British Government were alarmed by the degree to which the powers and responsibilities were moving upwards and, in no sense, downwards.
	We must also consider the general transfer of powers from member states to the EU illustrated in the new policy areas such as energy provision. That is a new competence provided for in the treaty. Given that it will be decided by qualified majority voting, it too is a transfer of authority in the wrong direction. We must also take into account the advances into criminal justice and policing, and immigration and asylum, and the new areas to be decided by QMV. I believe the Government have admitted to 51 such areas, which is a record; the Single European Act extended QMV into 12 new areas, but 51 is by far the most extensive advance of QMV in any treaty.
	To give an example of where that can act against the interests of this House and this country, may I remind the Committee of the artist's resale right, which was granted in a directive some two years ago, against the British Government's wishes? It gives artists a percentage of the sale price of a work when it is resold, and has been a feature of French law since the 1920s. The British Government opposed it because they understood that it would drive business out of the United Kingdom to jurisdictions such as America where no such levy applies, and because the British art market, which is by far the biggest in Europe, stood to lose the most. Almost 50,000 people are employed in the British art market, and if it were eroded or business were to move to other art markets in the rest of the world, it would be a loss not just to Britain but to Europe. That was why the Government rightly opposed and voted against the directive. A recent study has shown that the fears raised at the time have been confirmed: the British art market has been damaged, and artists have not benefited. In any case, only the more successful artists stood to gain anything from the levy.
	That is an example of majority voting under existing treaties being detrimental to the interests of an important part of British business. The problem was seen by the House and the Government, but they could do nothing about it. The situation can only get worse under the treaty, because majority voting is to be extended to 51 new matters and will become the norm.
	Amendments that may be made under the powers in the clause will include provisions reflecting the new reality of majority voting as contained in the treaty. I shall give examples of changes that may be in Ministers' minds. A clue comes from the European Union Bill of 2005, which had a Second Reading and would have given effect to the constitutional treaty but was abandoned when the French and Dutch electorates voted against the constitution.
	Interestingly, that Bill contained a similar power to amend existing UK statutes and instruments to give effect to the constitution. In all major respects, the constitution was exactly the same as the treaty currently before the House, so the Bill's provisions are still relevant. It took a different approach from the present Bill: instead of giving Ministers a general power to make amendments to Acts or instruments, part 2 of schedule 2 to the Bill named specifically a great many statutes to which modifications and amendments would be required. Presumably—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—the Government still have it in mind to make the modifications listed. However, instead of setting them out in the schedule to the current Bill, they seek to give themselves a general amending power. That is a regressive move, which will further erode the House's ability to scrutinise the changes.
	The list of Acts to which the 2005 Bill stated that modifications were required is interesting, and backs up the observations that I have made about the existing treaties. For instance, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 is listed as requiring the deletion of a reference to article 68 of the existing treaty and the insertion of a reference to an article in the constitutional treaty. Exactly the same modification is presumably required, except that not an article in the constitutional treaty but an article in the treaty of Lisbon will be required.
	This is not simply a matter of terminology; it is a matter of substance. The reference to article 68 in the 1982 Act limits the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, whereas the replacement article in the existing treaty does things differently, as it has been substantially amended. We are not simply talking about a technical change; we are talking about a matter of substance, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that when he replies to the debate.
	Amendments to the Government of Wales Act 1998 involve the deletion of the word "regulations" and the substitution of the phrase "any order, rules, regulations or scheme". Again, that is not simply a matter of terminology; it is a matter of substance.
	I shall give another example. The Export Control Act 2002 was supposed to be modified. That is important because it gives the Government the power to control exports or the transfer of technology to other countries, possibly in line with the requirements of the common foreign and security policy. So the Act would need to be amended to reflect the treaty of Lisbon. But—this is the point—the common foreign and security policy provisions in the treaty of Lisbon are substantially different and far greater in scope and power than those under the existing treaties. Again, this is not simply a technical change of terminology.
	Another example is the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Again, the Act refers to articles 31 and 32 of the existing treaties, in which criminal justice is treated as an intergovernmental matter, whereas under the present treaty, as I have explained, it becomes a matter for the European Court of Justice and for qualified majority voting. In other words, that pillar of the existing European Union is collapsed and replaced by the normal Community method of decision making. So replacing those articles with the new articles in the existing treaty is not, again, a matter of terminology; it is a matter of substance.

James Clappison: Is not the change of substance to the common area of justice and security that my right hon. Friend has rightly identified as far away as possible from the original conception of Governments meeting to co-operate on judicial, home affairs and criminal justice matters? We are now to have a common area—with harmonised rules, sometimes common criminal offences and common Eurojust and Europol systems—that is as far away from co-operation as it is possible to be.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the reason why criminal justice and policing were treated intergovernmentally is precisely that they are very important matters that the public feel must be dealt with in a Parliament to which they relate and, crucially, that can be changed after a general election if there is a change of Government. Indeed, I would go further: we obey the law because these are our laws in a sense, and they can be enacted, amended or repealed by our Parliament. Once they become enacted in a different jurisdiction that we do not control, that precious democratic link is fractured, with very serious consequences.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a similar example relating to statutory instruments and the manner in which they can be introduced came up a couple of years ago in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which has since been enacted? My proposal that Parliament assert its supremacy over the European Communities Act 1972 is the only way that my right hon. Friend's argument can be put into effect, because the reality is that, whether we are talking about Acts or statutory instruments, the decisions will be taken outside Parliament, unless the House asserts its right to legislate on behalf of the voters of this country.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I remember voting for his very good amendment to the Bill that he mentions. It follows from what he says that he would agree that when the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was enacted, and reference was made to articles 31 and 34 of the existing treaty, Parliament did not think that instead of the treaties, there would one day be the treaty of Lisbon, which would take criminal justice and policing out of the intergovernmental pillar and collapse it, and instead make the issues subject to the mainstream Community method, with all that that implies.
	I hope that I have demonstrated that the Bill will give the Executive—specifically, the Secretary of State or the Treasury—a wide power to make amendments. Those amendments can cover primary, as well as secondary, legislation. I think it wrong in principle that the negative procedure should be used to amend primary legislation, unless there is good reason for doing so. I have shown that we are talking about matters of substance. I gave a number of examples, from a previous Act, of provisions that would have incorporated the constitutional treaty, if it had gone ahead. Those examples must endure as proposals that the Government identified as requiring amendment. I have shown that the Bill does not simply make technical adjustments; we are dealing with significant changes that touch on the powers of the European Court of Justice, the scope of, and powers under, the common foreign and security policy, and the collapse of the intergovernmental pillar governing criminal justice. Those are material changes, and they affect the powers of the House.
	In conclusion, I repeat that the amendment would make a modest change. It is not a wrecking amendment. If it is made, it does not destroy, or even modify, the treaty; our other amendments do that. It simply concerns an internal matter to do with the powers of the House. I therefore commend it to hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Rob Marris: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that "European Communities" is different from "European Union", and that is partly what the treaty of Lisbon is about. He made an interesting speech but, with due respect, most of it was wholly irrelevant. I suggest that he has been misled by the maladroit wording of clause 3.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Well, it's not my fault, is it?

Rob Marris: No, it is not; I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am referring to the clause heading on line 15 of page 1, which is "Changes of terminology". It should say "Changes of definition and terminology". I will return to that in a moment. Also, subsection (3), on lines 4 and 5 of page 2, says:
	"The Table in the Schedule to this Act sets out substitutions required to reflect terminology after the commencement of the Treaty of Lisbon."
	That should read something like, "The table in the schedule to this Act sets out substitutions required to reflect the consequences of the commencement of the treaty of Lisbon." That returns us to one of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman with which I agree, which is that "European Communities" does not mean the same as "European Union".
	Amendment No. 39 would amend clause 3(5), which sets out how the powers granted under subsection (4) will be exercised. Those powers are not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, "changes of definition". Subsection (1) contains the phrase:
	"In section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (interpretation) before the definition of 'the Communities' insert—".
	The key word is "definition", which is why I said that the clause's title should be "Changes of definition and terminology".

William Cash: Amendment No. 39 concerns subsection (4), as applied by subsection (5), whereas subsection (1) is a stand-alone provision that amends section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Is the hon. Gentleman going to relate the questions about subsections (3) and (4) to a separate debate, or does he want to drift back to subsection (1)? Perhaps he has become confused.

Rob Marris: I have certainly not become confused. I have already adverted to amendment No. 39 and what it does. If the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) bears with me, he might see where I am going, so I urge patience.
	As I have said, subsection (1) uses the word "definition", whereas subsection (4) refers to
	"changes in terminology or numbering".
	The power granted under subsection (4) relates to changes in terminology or numbering; it does not relate to definitions. For the particular benefit of the hon. Member for Stone, that is why I have said three times that the title of clause 3 is not helpful—I used the adjective "maladroit"—and drawn attention to the use of the word "definition" in subsection (1).

William Cash: rose—

Rob Marris: I will make some progress. I have urged patience on the hon. Gentleman, and I continue to do so.
	Subsection (4) uses the word "terminology". The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to believe that subsection (4) included the word "definition" rather than the word "terminology". If the word "definition" were used in subsection (4) instead of the word "terminology", I would support his amendment. However, if the word "definition" had been used instead of the word "terminology", the Government would not have drafted subsection (5), which the right hon. Gentleman wants to amend, in its current form.

William Cash: rose—

Rob Marris: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I urge patience.
	I realise that amendment No. 39 relates to subsection (5), but it is important to discuss subsection (4), because subsection (5) concerns the exercise of powers granted under subsection (4). The second half qualifies the first half of subsection (4). The first half gives power to the Secretary of State or the Treasury; the second half specifies that over which the power may be exercised, just as subsection (5) specifies the way in which the power may be exercised. One has to read clause 3(4) completely to see that the second half—
	"to reflect changes in terminology or numbering arising out of the Treaty of Lisbon"—
	in a sense qualifies the first.

William Cash: This is a complex matter, and I am not trying to disparage the hon. Gentleman's remarks in any way. He is trying to draw a distinction between definitions and terminology. If he looks at the schedule, he will see tables with "Provision of the European Communities Act 1972" at the head of one column, "Existing expression" at the head of the next and "Substituted expression" at the head of the third. There are three pages of substituted expressions.
	To take one, crucial example, the words "Enforceable Community right" are turned into "Enforceable EU right". That is a substantive change, made by the substitution of expression. It is not simply a matter of terminology as such; there is a substantive effect. If the existing expression had been left, it would not be possible to implement the merger of the existing treaties.

Rob Marris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; clearly, I have not yet made myself crystal clear to him or perhaps the Committee. On at least two occasions in this speech, I have agreed that, as patiently set out by the right hon. Member for Wells, it is a substantive change to say that "European Communities" does not mean the same as "European Union". Today in the House we are discussing primary legislation, including whether we should vote that the schedule, which makes substantive changes, as the hon. Member for Stone has pointed out, should be in the Bill or not. The schedule is a substantive change, and I say to the hon. Member for Stone and other Members that that is precisely why at the beginning I described the heading of clause 3 as misleading to the right hon. Member for Wells and others because of its maladroit wording—it should say "Changes of definition and terminology".
	Not only that, but I said that clause 3(3), which brings in the schedule, was badly worded because it contains the word "terminology", which should be left out. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stone missed that; I shall repeat what I said for his benefit. I said that clause 3(3) should read, "The Table in the Schedule to this Act sets out substitutions required to reflect the consequences of the commencement of the Treaty of Lisbon." That leaves out the misleading word "terminology", which should not have been included because it refers to the schedule, which is substantive because "European Union" does not mean the same as "European Communities".

William Cash: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman ended on that note, because I have a feeling that although this discussion is about as turgid as it can get, it is important. The fact is that changing the expressions in that way has a different legal effect. Effectively, when we now refer to legal obligations there is a new kind of legal situation that is much more integrating than before and moves away, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, from intergovernmental to Union parameters. It therefore has—and this is, in a nutshell, why I am pursuing the issue—highly significant constitutional implications. My point is simple: the changes have constitutional implications, and because of their scale they add up to another reason for holding a referendum.

Rob Marris: I agree that clause 3(3) has constitutional implications, but clause 3(4) does not. Subsection (4) uses the word "terminology" correctly, but subsection (3) does not. Subsection (4), which is absolutely germane to amendment No. 39, does not make a constitutional change—it says that substitutions should
	"reflect changes in terminology or numbering".
	That is clearly an incidental provision, not a substantive change.

John Gummer: I rise to discuss this issue for two reasons: I do not agree with the amendment, but I agree with the fact that we are having the debate. The House should be having precisely this kind of debate on every aspect of the Bill, and its rather arcane nature—I think, Sir Michael, that your own interventions have shown that it is quite difficult to know exactly when we are or are not in order—does not make it any less important. The fact that we have enough time to talk about this underlines how little time we have had to talk about even more important issues. The argument that we are having is a kind of surrogate for the arguments that we should have had if the timetabling system had enabled us to do so.
	I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is right in his concerns, but it is perfectly reasonable to debate the amendment in order to underline them. I do not think that the operation of what we are discussing enacts changes that are more serious than those that are part of the decision to accept the treaty of Lisbon. The treaty creates the terminological change from the European Communities to the European Union. For me, that is an admirable change that enables us to move forward rather than backwards, and I am pleased about that. However, it has come to something when we have to discuss an amendment of this kind in order to be able to talk about the changes that we would otherwise have been able to talk about in normal line-by-line discussion of the treaty. This is the first time that we have had time to discuss this very important treaty in such detail. It is clear, given those present in the Chamber, that we are likely to be able to discuss everything before us in the time that we have available, which is unique.
	For those of us for whom there is no terror in this remarkably valuable treaty, the House's inability to debate and argue in order to show that it is much less difficult than how some would characterise it has proved to be a great loss. As we proceed, it has been noticeable that even the residual concerns that one might have had have evaporated when properly debated. I have been much cheered by the fact that at the end of many debates I have found that, in relation to certain problems that I had, the argument for the treaty has clearly been made. If one does not have time to have the argument, one cannot have it—that is why it is important that we have this discussion.
	I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells that it is true that we have to move forward, and it is true that we have qualified majority voting. He has gone from that to saying that we must have a rather more complex way to deal with the terminological changes involved. That is a mistaken argument, as is the argument against qualified majority voting. Speaking as one who has worked under that system, and the veto system, in the European Union, I always found it much easier to get my own way under QMV. Under the veto system, one is using what might be called an atomic bomb on every occasion, while under QMV, one is normally able to win if the issue is important.
	My right hon. Friend chose an example where Britain was entirely in the wrong, and I am pleased that at long last artists have a right that they should have had before. It is quite unacceptable that great works that are recognised as such later in their lifetime should be sold for huge and inflated amounts while the artist receives nothing. I have always thought that, and the fact that other nations outside the EU have not recognised it seems a pity. I am pleased that we lost that particular battle, but I shall come on to say why I think that QMV works.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of information, the artist will not receive the money because the work of art will be sold in another jurisdiction where the levy does not apply. Not only will the artist not get the money, but his gallery, the auctioneer, and all the restorers, packers, clerks and framers will lose business. The Government were right. It was a well-meaning measure, but it would not have been effective. That was shown conclusively by the independent study sponsored by the  Antiques Trade Gazette, which I now take pleasure in handing to my right hon. Friend.

John Gummer: I take much pleasure in receiving it. I think that I already have a copy of it, and the arguments in it take one side of the matter.
	I have a curiously old-fashioned view, which is that if one wants to change something, one changes it and then tries to convince other people. My right hon. Friend is really arguing that we should never do anything in the United Kingdom, let alone the European Union, to which one cannot get everyone else to agree in the first place. I cannot go along with that because as an environmentalist, I am deeply concerned that the EU should do a range of things that the rest of the world is not doing. We have to set an example, and show that we are prepared to do something.
	I disagree with my right hon. Friend on the issue in question, but even if he is right, he cannot argue that that is a reason for changing the clause through the amendment. The two do not hang together. The only reason I have spoken on it was that I thought it worthwhile maintaining that not everyone agreed with his view on QMV or on the issue that he raised.
	The problem with the understanding expressed on QMV is that it fails to face the issue of what it means to co-operate. If co-operation is to be effective, when one shows willingness to do so, either under QMV or where there is a veto involved, it must stand so that it is something upon which others can depend. If it cannot stand, and we are merely considering a matter of part-time occasional agreement between Governments, there is no way in which the great efforts that we have to make in the EU can be made. Mrs. Thatcher understood that perfectly well when she insisted that the Single European Act, which changed more than anything else we have talked about, should not be subject to changes of Government or changes of attitude in Parliament.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is eloquent and interesting, as always. He said that he found it easier to get his way through qualified majority voting than when he had a veto. Would he give us an example of an area of policy where he failed to get his way even though he had the veto?

John Gummer: Of course, in any discussion, one does not always get everything one wants, and I would not dream of suggesting that I was always 100 per cent. successful.

Peter Lilley: An example of one success?

John Gummer: Against the background of qualified majority voting, everybody seeks not to push things that matter seriously to someone else because they do not want to be pushed in the opposite direction in some future discussion. A collegiate result, which is very effective, is therefore achieved. The trouble with vetoing is that one can rarely use it if one is to be successful in the collegiate attitude, and, in my experience, one gets one's way less. My right hon. Friend may have other experiences, but it is what I believe.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said that QMV for energy matters means that we could tie ourselves to things that we want to change after the election. He is right. However, if we were to do as he suggests, we could not make long-term energy agreements in the European Union because we would have to allow 27 countries to sign up to agreements only after they had held general elections. Or do the British believe that somehow their Parliament has a different role to play? I would find that a difficult argument to present.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend seriously advance the proposition that co-operation on energy requires the treaty? The United Kingdom is party to thousands of policy agreements with other countries and organisations throughout the world on the basis of unanimity. Does he believe that we require the treaty, with QMV, to do what we have done for scores of years under existing procedures?

John Gummer: No, not to do what we have done for scores of years but to achieve something more effective. We have not dealt with matters effectively and we therefore need a mechanism whereby we can do that over a long period. The point about the European Union is that it enables us to work with other colleagues in a context that people understand to be one in which we make decisions for the long term in a manner that enables us to give and take. My problem with my right hon. Friend's argument and that of all those who dislike the European Union or the treaty of Lisbon is that it fails to understand that the institutions that we need to deal with a globalised world are not the same institutions that we have used previously.
	The great thing about the European Union is that it has grasped the fact that the countries of Europe must decide either that they will continue to play the game by the old method, and thereby remain outwith the genuine arguments, or that they will act together so that they are at the heart of major global decisions. Acting together demands the sort of institutional changes for which the treaty of Lisbon provides.
	The wording of clause 3 is maladroit—the Government are, of course, known for their maladroitness in writing anything. Indeed, one of the reasons that I feel so passionately about what the Government have done to the House is that past Governments known for maladroitness were put right by the long period of debate and discussion in Committee. However, the Government, like a secretary who does not want a dictionary in case it proves that she cannot spell, have destroyed the dictionary. No one is therefore allowed to argue with the Government in a detailed way.
	Although normally I would have allowed my right hon. Friend to continue with the view that he has, in his mind rightly, held for many years—I have always held the opposite view—on this occasion I thought it right to use the issue to show the House why a line-by-line debate on the treaty was not only what we were promised, but what would help the Government. Such a debate would enable them both to see whether things were less adroitly presented than they might wish them to be and—I am sure that the Minister will do this in his summing up—to promise the House that they would treat the provisions as though they had been properly written. Indeed, the Minister might even think of a slight amendment in the wording, but we shall see whether that is so.
	Lastly, I am concerned about the proposed mechanism, for this reason. If I am right that we are talking about a matter of nomenclature—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was right to say that it is perfectly possible to argue that the nomenclature reflects a big change in the treaty—one would certainly not want to make the change proposed in the amendment, because that would give people a much greater opportunity to stray beyond mere nomenclature. Were we to agree to the amendment, that would suggest that there was in fact an area in which the Government could stretch what they could do through such relatively easy mechanisms beyond that which would be reasonable.
	I am therefore opposing the amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has moved, partly—if I may put it so presumptuously—for his own good. Were he to gain what he seeks, he would be giving future Governments an excuse to move beyond the mere nomenclature to something greater.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that my right hon. Friend has not completely misunderstood the reason for my amendment. The reason is precisely to give the House a check, to ensure that in making such changes in future the Government were not, under the cover of making name changes, in fact making substantive changes. Surely he should join me in enhancing the power of the House to ensure adequate scrutiny of the Executive in implementing clause 3.

John Gummer: But in my view the Government would not, in the relevant circumstances, have the power under the Bill to make changes other than those to mere nomenclature. I am concerned that placing before the House a system that my right hon. Friend knows to be limited in effect would not only encourage the widest interpretation, rather than the most narrow, but give people a belief that he had achieved something that, frankly, he would not have achieved. Neither of those are very suitable results; therefore I want neither of them.
	However, my right hon. Friend is right that the treaty makes some substantial changes. I would merely argue that those changes add considerably to the power of the United Kingdom and give us greater influence in the world, which makes it possible for us to play a part that we would not be able to play otherwise. I have confidence enough in the United Kingdom not to be worried that, working with colleagues in the rest of Europe, we cannot get our own way most of the time.

Jo Swinson: It is a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I have been enjoying his contributions to these debates very much, particularly the one last Wednesday, when he gave us a tour de force on the environment. I was also intrigued by the head-to-head exchange between the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The right hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in European affairs over many years and outlined in detail his concerns about clause 3.
	I intend to restrict my comments to the amendment, which I hope will find favour. Given that I take a different view on Europe from that of the right hon. Gentleman, it will perhaps not surprise hon. Members to learn that I disagree with much of what he said, particularly about the huge impact that the proposed change in the wording could have. However, I am able to agree somewhat with the spirit of his amendment. My party is in favour of proper scrutiny in the House, which is why, during our deliberations on the programme motion, the Liberal Democrats joined the Conservatives to argue that more time be given for the House to discuss these matters in more detail.
	I believe that the changes proposed in the orders will be very technical. None the less, the amendment proposes the sensible change of moving from the negative to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would not be a huge burden on the House. Indeed, if the changes were purely technical, as I expect they would be, one could imagine the Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with them quite briefly—although perhaps not if some of the hon. Members present today were selected to serve on it. It is not as though the amendment were asking for an Act of Parliament to be passed whenever a change in terminology was proposed.
	I have sat on many Statutory Instrument Committees discussing changes of an incredibly technical nature involving the change of certain words, and I do not think it would be a great problem to deal with such matters under the affirmative resolution procedure. It keeps Ministers on their toes more and ensures proper scrutiny. Given the lack of time that we have for the Committee stage of the Bill, it would be another way of ensuring that additional scrutiny could be undertaken. I therefore welcome the perhaps rare opportunity to support an amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Wells, as it would enable us to have greater power to scrutinise various aspects of the Bill.

William Cash: I want to take a close look at the impact of the extremely good amendment in relation to the way in which we legislate in the House. In particular, I want to focus on subsections (4) and (5), and to try to draw out the fact that I believe there to be somewhat more at the heart of this than seems to have been apparent so far.
	I have alluded many times to the manner in which the whole of the legislation that leads us to this specific focus arose. It arose from a mandate. The proper discussion with the European Scrutiny Committee that usually takes place in these treaty-making arrangements did not take place this time, because the House and the European Scrutiny Committee were bounced when the German presidency put together a mandate, at extremely short notice, in order to wriggle out of the mess that the original constitutional treaty had got into.
	I shall not trespass on your patience, Sir Michael, with respect to the relevance to the amendment of what I am going to say, but I want to make this point clearly. A vast amount of European legislation is made through statutory instruments—far more than Members of the House appreciate, and far more than is made by Acts of Parliament. Contrary to what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said just now, the powers that are given to enable those statutory instruments to be made in respect of European legislation have the character of Henry VIII clauses, because there is a power to use the statutory instrument procedure to modify Acts of Parliament under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. In other words, this is an explosive provision, because within it lies the power to generate amendments that could lead to amendments of Acts of Parliament. I think that the Minister, who I am sure has been properly briefed, will know exactly what I am saying. This is a huge Trojan horse and a very substantial incubus within which Acts of Parliament will be affected and amended.
	This mandate is used to describe negotiations between member states' Governments with a view to amending those treaties—that is, all the existing treaties. As we have already heard, the transmutation of arrangements under the European Communities and their conversion into the Union is much bigger than it might seem at first sight. The power to make statutory instruments to modify existing Acts of Parliament in pursuance of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 is mutually interdependent with the change that took place, as I shall explain.
	The mandate suggests an amending treaty that would amend, but not replace, the EU and EC treaties. The latter treaty would be renamed the treaty on the functioning of the Union, as we discovered in previous debates, but the word "Community" would be replaced by the word "Union", with the Union having a single legal personality and replacing and succeeding the Community. That is one of the reasons, as I explained previously to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), why the treaty has a constitutional character. By replacing and succeeding the Community, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) explained—I backed him up in my interventions—the pillars get changed, so there is a constitutional change. It is directly relevant to our discussion about affirmative or negative resolutions and directly relevant to the way in which the House legislates, as I shall explain more fully later.
	The mandate argues that the amended treaties
	"would not have a constitutional character".
	However, the European Scrutiny Committee made the position absolutely clear through its expert legal adviser, to whom I pay tribute again for his work. For, as the Committee went on to say, "this could be misleading". If the effect of the changes is to bring about the collapse of the pillars, which we know it is, with established doctrines of Community law such as direct effect, exclusive external competence and a full jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice, the change is, as I said in previous debates over the past few weeks, substantial and constitutional. In other words, there is a substantial equivalence between the original constitution and the one that we are now debating, which would bring what is done intergovernmentally within the more supranational framework of the Community method. That poses an enormous constitutional question. It may sound difficult; it may even sound boring; it may be turgid; it may be arcane, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned; but it is significant.
	I listened with fascination to the way in which the Government and Labour Members attempt to elide and slide over those questions. The reason for having a referendum is contained in this whole body of law that I have described, this Community method, this fundamental constitutional change in how we are governed—and its direct impact on the daily lives of our constituents who vote for policies and laws in general elections. Those people will find—and have already found by virtue of previous European legislation—that they are effectively excluded from the democratic process because they cannot change it subsequently.
	For all that to be done by a statutory instrument is proof of the significance of what I am saying. People outside will not believe that legislation can be properly discussed in respect of the tens of thousands of statutory instruments or amended in respect of Acts of Parliament. If a statutory instrument has the power to modify Acts of Parliament as well, I am sure you would understand me, Sir Michael, if I said that the incubus whereby a statutory instrument effectively becomes an Act of Parliament is of immense constitutional significance.  [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West saying that it is not. I am always more than happy to give way and I would be delighted to hear his reasoning. When he hears what I have to say later, perhaps he will reflect on it, but I am happy to give way to him now.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering to give way before I had even indicated that it might be convenient. What the hon. Gentleman is doing is reading into clause 3(4) the word "modify". I recognise that the noun "amendments" is also there, but as I said earlier, that is qualified by the second half of the provision, which continues with the words
	"to reflect changes in terminology or numbering arising out of the Treaty of Lisbon".
	The hon. Gentleman talks about the surprise of members of the public, but I believe that they would be surprised if, when a provision needs renumbering, we have to have a debate on the Floor of the House to provide for it, which is what would happen if the amendment were passed.

William Cash: I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman has walked into a trap, which I had not intended to set for him, but which he has created for himself. I was not referring to modification by reference to the Bill, but to modification that is inherent in the manner in which statutory instruments are made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, as I shall explain.
	Let me quote from Bradley and Ewing, one of the greatest constitutional authorities on this issue:
	"However undesirable this might appear in principle, Parliament frequently delegates to ministers power to amend Acts of Parliament."
	We need to bear in mind the fact that the European Communities Act 1972 sets these provisions, which emerged from the application of sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act, in concrete through the acquis communautaire and also provides for the ultimate arbiter—the papal infallibility of the European Union, we might say—the European Court of Justice, which is effectively unchallengeable. On the face of it and subject only to my new clause 9, which I hope the House will vote on in a couple of days' time, this provision will not be capable of repeal.
	The great constitutional authorities say first that this might appear undesirable, but they go on to say:
	"The term 'Henry VIII clause' is given to such provisions and numerous examples may be found in the Scotland Act 1998"
	and often in other such constitutional measures—and we should note that it also applies to
	"the Government of Wales Act 1998".
	It continues:
	"When the power in a new Act is restricted to amending earlier Acts that are directly affected by the new reforms, the power is less objectionable than when it extends to amending the very Act that contains the power."
	That is what we are talking about here.
	The authorities go on to say:
	"Three instances of delegated power to modify Acts of Parliament may be given."
	The first—surprise, surprise—is the European Communities Act 1972, section 2(2)—the very provision that we are now discussing, because it is under that provision that the statutory instruments would be subject to annulment, which the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells seeks to change. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I agree with him—we have also put our names to the amendment—that at the very least the affirmative procedure should be used. I shall point out in a minute—I am afraid that it will not be a minute, Sir Michael, but a little longer—a serious contradiction between the Bill and the 1972 Act, certainly in spirit if not in precise effect.
	Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act
	"authorises the making of Orders in Council and ministerial regulations to implement Community obligations of the United Kingdom"—
	under clause 3, that wording, "Community obligations", would be changed, through the schedule which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I were discussing earlier, to "EU obligations"—
	"to enable rights under the European treaties to be exercised and 'for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation or rights'".
	Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act, on which the making of statutory instruments turns, throws up one or two interesting questions, because it
	"excludes certain matters from the general power, including the imposition of taxes, retroactive legislation and the sub-delegation of legislative power (other than power to make rules of procedure for any court or tribunal). Subject to these limitations, measures made under section 2(2)"—
	the instruments made in pursuance of European treaty obligations—
	"may make 'any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament'".
	What we are dealing with, Mrs. Heal—I welcome you to the Chair—is a provision within section 2 of the European Communities Act, to be exercised through statutory instrument, which in turn has the same effect as any Act of Parliament.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) might be interested to know why I am so concerned to ensure that we retain the supremacy of Parliament and the right to be able to redress things that can go wrong. It is to ensure that the courts do not apply the European legislation in such a way as to set it in concrete, and/or even, as in the case of Factortame and the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to strike down Acts of Parliament. That might not be known to many people outside the House, because we tend to talk to one another. I hope that the BBC, under its charter, and others will ensure that people know that under the European Communities Act 1972, our ability to legislate is increasingly incapacitated.
	Under those kinds of provisions, to be exercised through statutory instrument—as I shall describe in a moment, mere annulment on the Floor of the House is virtually no defence whatever—legislation is being imposed on the voters of this country in a manner that would horrify them if they knew that it was going on. What would they think if they also knew that it could not be repealed, on the assertions of the European Court, but not on my assertions or those of the House, if it properly considers such matters? Through a "notwithstanding" formula—notwithstanding the 1972 Act—we could ensure that nothing in the Act, including the provision related to the statutory instruments that can modify Acts of Parliament, shall be construed by any court of law as affecting the legislative supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is an essential safeguard. This contribution on the effect of statutory instruments and the vast amount of power that they contain, under the arrangements, complements my speech on supremacy last Wednesday.
	The authorities continue:
	"The intention in using such wide language must have been to exclude the possibility of judicial review on grounds of vires in the case of instruments made under section 2(2)."
	Therefore, we are dealing not only with provisions that have the effect of being like Acts of Parliament, which cannot be amended because of the 1972 Act, but with judicial review being ruled out. That is pretty darn close, and is actually past the tipping point of an elected dictatorship—not even within the House, but going out into the European Union. In relation to thousands of statutory instruments, we are effectively being asked to hand over a power under section 2 that is virtually unchallengeable. In a moment, I shall deal with the minuscule, residual and meaningless opportunities for Members of the House to do anything about the instruments in question and their huge consequences. A power of annulment is a pathetic little block on the power that that provision gives to the European Union and Ministers.
	It is truly said that the provisions of Community law that do not have direct effect were addressed in two ways by the 1972 Act: first, by making amendments to existing legislation to bring it into line with Community law; and secondly, by introducing a general power to make subordinate legislation—the matter that we are discussing—to cover future as well as present Community instruments.
	According to the great commentators in their constitutional work,
	"Although there was concern about the new power to make subordinate legislation, the government did not expect the power to be frequently used".
	I believe that that refers to the Government of the late right hon. Edward Heath. I have to say that I have always had the gravest reservations about the way in which the 1972 Act was put through, and about the broken promises contained in it. As for the statement that
	"the government did not expect the power to be frequently used",
	perhaps they said that they hoped it would not be used. The authors of this great work then add
	"an expectation which was clearly unfulfilled."
	Under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, regulations may be introduced by a designated Minister
	"for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation".
	Under the schedule, for "Community obligation" we must read "EU obligation", and for "EU obligation" we must read
	"The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community."
	That derives, in this context, from the unacceptable, deceitful mandate that was put through without reference—except on 20 June—to the European Scrutiny Committee, which is given the power and the right, on behalf of Members of Parliament, to report to the House about provisions that arise in relation to European legislation. The House has been conned by the German presidency and by the collusion of our own Government, who went along with it.
	We cross-examined the Minister for Europe—who is sitting here today—and the Foreign Secretary, and asked them about the timing. I will not go into all of it now, but the bottom line is that the European Scrutiny Committee—a Labour-dominated Committee, I might add—was so appalled by what had gone on that its members, including our excellent Chairman, went on record in two reports proving the deceitful manner in which the thing had been done, and also stating that this constitution was substantially equivalent to the original constitutional treaty.
	You will understand, Mrs. Heal, why I am linking the vast powers that the clause provides to the manner in which the whole process has been conducted. It is a thorough disgrace. It is completely outside the norms of parliamentary legislative processes. To my mind it is the equivalent of the dreadful provisions in the so-called Northern Rock Bill, but I need not go into that again today.
	According to the great authorities whom I have been quoting, the Government said that they
	"did not expect the power to be frequently used".
	For the benefit of those who wish to see what was said at the time, a reference is given:
	"HC Deb, 15 February 1972, col 282."
	As I observed earlier, the Government may have merely said that they did not expect that to happen, but any such expectation "was clearly unfulfilled".
	Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, which enables powers to be introduced by a designated Minister for the purpose of implementing Community obligations, is subject to schedule 2, which provides that the regulations may not be used for the purposes that I mentioned earlier. As I said, one is retrospection and another is tax. A third is the creation of
	"any new criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years or punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for more than three months or with a fine"
	amounting to more than level 5 on the standard scale. The power to make regulations under those provisions is exercisable by statutory instrument which—these words are important—
	"if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House."
	The amendments would specifically remove the right to make the resolution subject to annulment, in line with what was, apparently, originally intended. They are extremely important, because they propose that, at the very least, the order should be subject to approval rather than—as clause 3 proposes—subject to annulment. However, that is said without prejudice to my other point, which is that the process should not take place in a way that would enable, by statutory instrument, the variation and modification of matters that should be dealt with by Act of Parliament.
	These provisions are the European equivalent of a Henry VIII clause, which I should think would be a Charles V clause, a Frederick the Great clause or a Catherine the Great clause. This is another example of the change that is taking place in the way in which we legislate. It should be done, if at all—and I wish it were not done—by Act of Parliament, and not by any statutory arrangements of the kind that are being proposed. Fresh obligations under Community law continue to be implemented by both primary and secondary legislation, but, as I have said, it is not possible to amend those legislative arrangements, whether by primary legislation or by statutory instrument.
	The constitutional commentators say:
	"Although the power to make subordinate legislation has been widely construed, the government must indicate in clear terms what primary legislation is being repealed or amended when this procedure is invoked."
	.
	We are dealing with matters that have been given a great deal of judicial notice, but the reality remains that under section 3 of the 1972 Act it is incumbent on courts to give effect to what the European Court of Justice decides. It is necessary to complete the process to give effect to European law, hence my new clause 9, which would give us the right to reassert and put into effect the "notwithstanding" formula to override the 1972 Act where necessary.
	Lest anyone imagine that that has not been done before, I remind Members that two years ago, in May 2006, the Bill that became the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 was debated in the House. It was all to do with burdens on business, a matter of huge importance given that Commissioner Verheugen has said that it is costing the European Union some £100 billion a year, or perhaps €100 billion a year—anyway, a vast amount. That is a European Commissioner saying that over-regulation has gone mad. I wrote a pamphlet called "The Strangulation of British Business" along the same lines. The statutory instruments made to give effect to this over-regulation are now based on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, in which there is an order-making power to give effect to, among other things, European regulatory reform legislation. They call it better regulation; I say it is much worse, because there is so much of it. The amount is secondary to the qualitative effect. The quantity is appalling, but the qualitative effect is vast, as Commissioner Verheugen has said. The provisions in the Bill that would be put through by annulment only must at the very minimum be made by way of affirmative resolution.
	I proposed a "notwithstanding" formula to bypass the order-making power of the type referred to in clause 3. That formula, in the interests of economic competitiveness, was endorsed. The Whips asked if I would be good enough to allow them to take over the amendments. I said, "By all means, feel free." Lord Waddington, my good friend, took it through the House of Lords six weeks later. We did not win the vote but the Conservative party, here and in the Lords, endorsed the procedure, which would stop this nonsense taking place.
	I now turn to the procedure that is to be followed. Irrespective of whether the matter is a European Community one or not, these are the parliamentary procedures prescribed for statutory instruments. I have here a helpful factsheet produced by the House of Commons Information Office. It is in good straightforward language and describes the nature of statutory instruments. It states that many laws in the UK pass through Parliament in the form of Bills, but:
	"Often, Acts only contain a broad framework and SIs are used to provide the necessary detail that would be considered too complex to include in the body of an Act.
	Secondary legislation can also be used to amend, update or enforce existing primary legislation. Statutory Instruments are just as much a part of the law of the land as an Act of parliament. The Courts can question whether a Minister, when issuing an SI, is using a power he has actually been given by the parent Act"—
	that is the ultra vires question; is it within or beyond the powers of the Act?—
	"but cannot question the validity of the Statutory Instrument for any other reason."
	I have just pointed out that it was clearly intended that the method to be employed under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, to which these instruments relate, was designed to avoid questions of ultra vires being challengeable in the courts. The factsheet indicates that the process is not meant to be carried out in a way that would result in challenge in the courts, but we know that there has been a serious attempt to try to avoid European statutory instruments being challenged in the courts for lack of vires.
	How do these statutory instruments get made? I was on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for several years under the chairmanship of the late husband of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), Bob Cryer; a very good man and excellent cricketer, who captained the Yorkshire—

Sylvia Heal: Order. The cricketing skills of former Members of this House are not part of the amendment.

William Cash: All I can say—the transcript will demonstrate this—is that although I am making a fairly substantial, some would say long, speech, every single word I have expressed is directly related to the instrument-making power and to the impact of the extension of EC law to modifying Acts of Parliament by statutory instruments, which is under no circumstances acceptable.
	When I was on the Joint Committee, I suggested that against the title of every statutory instrument that came from the EU we should put a little "e" so that when people tried to judge whether or not the question of vires applied, they would know whether the instrument was related to a European Community obligation or not. I understand that once I left the Committee, that process was discontinued, which is a great shame. I hope it is to be brought back—someone suggested that there was talk of it—otherwise, one cannot track the extent to which European legislation has that overriding quality.
	In relating this matter to the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells that it should be subject to affirmative resolution, an interesting question arises from the procedure of negative resolutions. A negative resolution is a procedure for annulment.

John Gummer: It sounds like something occult.

William Cash: It is like "The Devil Rides Out", but the devil is in the detail. Instruments subject to negative resolution procedure become law unless there is an objection from the House. The instruments are laid in draft and cannot be made if the draft is disapproved within 40 days. That is significant because it is not possible under the 1972 Act to disapprove a draft; one is not allowed to as a result of the implications of sections 2 and 3 of that Act.
	Clause 3(5) of the Bill states:
	"An order under subsection (4)—
	(a) may include incidental provision
	(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
	(c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	That is nonsense. It is quite clear that such an order cannot be made if the draft is disapproved within 40 days. It is not, however, possible for the House to disapprove it because of sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act, so this provision in the Bill is a complete nonsense. I would like the Minister to address that point. It has taken me quite a long time to reach it, but it must be right because I am referring to a House of Commons factsheet. It states that statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure
	"cannot be made if the draft is disapproved within 40 days",
	but there is no power to do that under the 1972 Act—which, incidentally, is part and parcel of the entire operation of the Lisbon treaty. Therefore, as I have said, this provision is complete nonsense.
	It would be preferable for the instruments to be subject to affirmative procedure, because under those arrangements instruments cannot become law unless they are approved by both Houses. I say with due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells that although I agree that it is important for us to have something better than the negative procedure, the reality is that even if we have the affirmative procedure and do not use primary legislation, we will run straight into the problems of the acquis communautaire and the 1972 Act. Furthermore, even primary legislation can be overridden—which is why I tabled new clause 9 on the supremacy of Parliament. Therefore, we are in a fine old mess, and I do not think it is possible for people to appreciate quite how much power has drained away from this House.
	There is a body called the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; I have served on it. There is also a new Lords Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments. It was first appointed in December 2003, and it complements the work of the Joint Committee. The Merits Committee's task is to consider the policy implications of statutory instruments and to decide whether a statutory instrument should be drawn to the House of Lords' attention on certain grounds, including
	"that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House"
	and
	"that it inappropriately implements EU legislation".
	Therefore, in relation to the provisions under clause 3, it can ask whether any instruments inappropriately implement EU legislation. I do not, however, believe that it will ever say that any instrument does do so inappropriately. I dispute the primacy of European law, as do many of my colleagues—more than 40 Members have signed my amendment on supremacy, and many others of all parties agree. The arrangements stipulated in relation to the primacy of European law—asserted by the European Court of Justice and weakly accepted by our Government and other Governments—even assert powers over our constitutional rights. They must be rebutted.
	I regret having had to explain this situation at some length, but it is important to understand that my speech has not been just a European filibuster or a Eurosceptic rant. It is about the way we legislate under the procedures prescribed in clause 3, the inadequacy of the control that we have over them, and the inability to be able to deal with European legislation in many instances because of sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act. It is therefore necessary for us to reassert in practical terms—not just as a matter of general principles or abstractions, or in theological dissertations—how we can ensure that where negotiations have failed, we legislate on behalf of the voters of this country, so as, in relation to burdens on business for example, to guarantee economic competitiveness in the manner suggested by the current leader of the Conservative party.

James Clappison: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I do not pretend to have anything like his mastery of the detail of this matter, but what shone forth from his analysis was the same underlying point as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made in opening the debate: the need for transparency, and to ensure that points of significance are not disguised by terminology and that matters of substance are there for all to see. I think that we can make common cause on the fact that there has not been as much transparency as we would have liked in these proceedings, and in the process that led up to the intergovernmental conference mandate and then the IGC itself. It cannot be pretended that this has been a transparent process. I wonder whether the Minister can stand up and say that the process that led up to the IGC mandate in particular, which was little changed after the IGC itself, was as transparent as the Government would have wished it to be. I do not think anybody could say that it was transparent. My hon. Friend put forward one point of view and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) properly and honourably put forward another, although I certainly do not agree entirely with his different conception of Europe, but we can make common cause on the fact that there has not been the amount of transparency that there should have been.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells was entirely right to set all of this within the context of the overall changes that the Bill and treaty are making. We must begin by referring to the pillar structure, which we obtained from the Maastricht treaty. We were told at the time that that would be the settlement for Europe. It was said that the Maastricht treaty was the high point of European federalism: that it would put that beyond doubt and that in future matters involving our relationship with Europe would be contained within the system of the three pillars—the Community pillar and the intergovernmental pillars of justice and home affairs and common foreign and security policy. However, through the current treaty we have now seen the collapsing of those pillars. Instead we have, in effect, one treaty divided into two parts, which is why transparency is so important.
	My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells were right to draw attention to the unifying effect of the treaty. It is there in article 1; we have gone from the three pillars to what is contained at the beginning of the treaty, which is there for all to see and which is a change from the treaty of Nice. We are told under title 1, article 1:
	"The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Treaties"). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community."

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his concerns to the amendment under discussion.

James Clappison: As my right hon. Friend made clear in his opening speech, when there are further changes in terminology within the structure we should have the opportunity to debate them in the House under the provisions of clause 3(5), and we should have the appropriate procedures so we know exactly what is taking place when, for example, there is a change in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the area of common justice, freedom and security, or a change in the common foreign and security policy which takes place within the treaty on European Union.
	The terminology should be clear, because we need transparency as to what is taking place. My hon. Friend was right to set this in the context of what took place in the lead-up to the IGC mandate, because terminology is so important in that regard.
	I think it is commonly agreed that we did not have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals that the Government discussed at the IGC mandate Council meeting in June. The previous Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee at the beginning of June that no negotiations or discussions had been taking place, yet on 19 June the IGC mandate was produced, 48 hours and 30 minutes later the Council opened and two days later, on 23 June, an agreement was reached. This country agreed to the IGC mandate and, as the Minister for Europe can confirm, it was not changed very much in substance by November's subsequent IGC.
	We had no opportunity to scrutinise the terminology or the substance. That is so important as far as terminology is concerned because we know that the Government received a questionnaire from the German presidency in the period leading up to June's IGC mandate Council meeting. The Government told us that no discussions or negotiations had been taking place, yet we know they received a questionnaire from the German presidency last April, or thereabouts, asking them how terminology could be used in relation to the substance of the proposals being discussed.
	Question 3 of that questionnaire asked:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States using a different terminology without changing the legal substance, for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of EU legal acts and the Union's Minister for Foreign Affairs?"
	Terminology is so important because we are debating how we are to scrutinise such matters in future and we must ensure that we have the right type of scrutiny.
	Question 1 asked:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States not to repeal the existing treaties but to return to the classical method of treaty changes while preserving the single legal personality and overcoming the pillar structure of the EU?"
	This is exactly what is happening in this treaty and what was contained in the original European constitution, which we all know was rejected. Perish the thought that the thinking behind the German questionnaire was how the states concerned were going to get off the hook, disguise the fact that they wanted the constitution and change the terminology in order to do so—perish the thought that that was the process.
	We know that the German questionnaire was sent to member states, including to our Government, only because it was leaked—again, no transparency. Our Government have yet properly to admit even that they have received it. The then Foreign Secretary was asked about it in Foreign Office questions last May by my right hon. Friend. The substance of her reply was that she barely knew about it and she would take no notice of it. I do not think that that is doing her a disservice, because she said that there had been no negotiations and she seemed not to have known much about the questionnaire. We certainly know that we have not seen what our Government said in response to the questionnaire.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could relate his concern over the questionnaire to the amendment that we are discussing.

James Clappison: Although you are right to ask me that, Mrs. Heal, I am spot on the case because we need to know that this House will have the opportunity to debate terminology to ensure that substance is not being disguised behind it, as happened in the very process by which this treaty was brought into being.
	The Minister could go a long way towards answering our concerns by telling us why the Government are so reluctant to publish their response to the German questionnaire—it is not too late, but I do not suppose they will do so. The Minister looks a bit concerned about that, but if we are to accept that the Government are being transparent, we need to know what their response was. The questionnaire's wording makes it evident that proposals had been made by member states, so while he is at it perhaps he could tell us whether the Government made any proposals to the German presidency before it came up with this questionnaire.

Rob Marris: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we can move away from the German questionnaire.

James Clappison: I hope to come back to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he is very interested in this matter.
	I agree with the analysis, although not the conclusions, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal on this matter. We also need transparency because of the extension of qualified majority voting. We will have a debate on that later, but transparency is important because the treaty marks a sea change on QMV and several of its provisions will make it much easier for the Community to move to QMV. The treaty was designed by those who negotiated it with that view in mind. Such provisions can only be in place to make it easier to move to QMV. Whether one agrees with QMV or whether, as I am, one is reluctant about it and thinks that it should be handled extremely carefully because it involves a significant movement of sovereignty—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have a debate tomorrow on qualified majority voting, in which I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

James Clappison: Indeed, and I hope that I will catch your eye, or the eye of whoever is in the Chair at that time, Mrs. Heal. This is just a little preface of future remarks. We have been short of time in these debates and Back Benchers have often not had the opportunity to contribute, so we might not get a chance to hear them later. We need transparency, given what has taken place and what I suspect is in store for us—future incremental constitutional change, which this treaty embodies.

Mark Francois: Amendment No. 39, which was ably introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), would allow for all orders made under clause 3 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure, as the Government wish. It would thus improve the Bill by compelling the Government to lay all orders made under subsection (4) before Parliament and by instructing that such orders should all be positively approved by resolutions of both Houses. The amendment would thus improve parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the treaty's details into UK law without, for better or worse, wrecking the Bill in the process.
	I hope that hon. Members from all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who have expressed the wish to strengthen Parliament when outside this place, will join us in supporting the amendment. I understand that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said as much—

Jo Swinson: You missed that.

Mark Francois: I apologise to the hon. Lady; I had to nip out of the Chamber for a few minutes, so I missed her contribution. I am grateful for her commitment that the Liberal Democrats would vote with us on the amendment, and we look forward to that being honoured when the Bell rings.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) also touched on the amendment briefly—for three quarters of an hour.

William Cash: It was 50 minutes.

Mark Francois: I have short-changed my hon. Friend—it was 50 minutes. He discussed the amendment knowledgeably. It specifically relates to the operation of orders made under subsection (4).
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells and others explained, the clause puts into United Kingdom law the terminological changes necessary to reflect the fact that the Lisbon treaty merges the existing EU entities, save the atomic energy body, into one legal entity, just as the original constitution attempted to do. The EU's three-pillar structure is largely abolished. Justice and home affairs are totally absorbed into what has hitherto been called the European Community, which is a fundamental change. The distinction in name and legal personality between the intergovernmental second pillar on foreign and security policy and the European Community is also done away with.
	Those technical changes actually signify profound changes in the EU's structure, purpose and powers, belying the ridiculous claim that Lisbon is merely an amending treaty of little real importance, as the Government would have the House and the country believe. In the place of three distinct agreements, if the Bill is passed, we will have one new all-encompassing legal personality, swallowing up the distinct activities that come under the EU mantle. If the treaty is ratified, the European Union, which until now has existed only as an umbrella term encompassing the various European agreements, will become less of a temple and more of a monolith, with a unified legal identity in its own right.
	The Minister is fond of saying that the constitutional concept has been abandoned, but whatever the Government's sophistry about the treaty, its outcome will be almost exactly the same as that of the old constitution: the collapse of the pillar structure, which until now has safeguarded sensitive parts of our sovereignty as intergovernmental, and the merging of the EU into one legal entity.

William Cash: There is one point that we have not covered. Does my hon. Friend know why there are references in the clause to both the Secretary of State and the Treasury? If he does not, perhaps the Minister will tell us. There is a reason for it, and it would be interesting to know what it is.

Mark Francois: I suspect that my hon. Friend is asking the Minister a question through me. I am sure that the Minister has heard it, and along with my hon. Friend, I look forward to hearing his reply.

Jim Murphy: indicated assent.

Mark Francois: He has obviously clocked it, and we shall hear his response in a moment.
	The amendment would mean that changes such as I have described would be scrutinised by Parliament, and it would therefore improve the Bill. We were promised line-by-line scrutiny, but, as we heard earlier, that has not happened. If the amendment is accepted, we can at least scrutinise further changes to the terminology of the treaty, which, as we have heard in detail, could be of wide-ranging significance. It would not wreck the Bill, but would improve it. It will be supported by the Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats, and it would be nice to hear that the Government have decided to support it as well.

Jim Murphy: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), as always, and to have the opportunity to respond to the debate on the rather narrow amendment No. 39, which has been wide ranging and always in order. We have heard from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in a speech that was 46 minutes short.

William Cash: It was 50.

Jim Murphy: I made it 46, but perhaps it was nearer 50. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been accused of a Eurosceptic rant or filibuster, but I hope that he accepts that at no point have I suggested anything of the sort. While listening to his reflections on the cricketing skills of the late Mr. Cryer, who was a Labour Member, I appreciated why the House had previously taken a view in principle on the timetabling of certain Government business. We were denied the opportunity to hear even more on the apparently great cricketing skills of my friend Mr. Cryer.
	I shall respond to the specific, wide-ranging points that hon. Members made. I do not wish to go into detail on all of them, and the Committee would not thank me for doing so, because we have other amendments to reflect upon. A number of right hon. and hon. Members asked me about legal personality. We have been round the houses about it previously and are well versed in the arguments: having a legal personality is not new for the European Community or the European Union. The EC has had a legal personality since the treaty of Rome in 1957, and the EU has a functional legal personality that has enabled it to conclude 100 or so agreements in its name over the years.
	Several right hon. and hon. Members mentioned competence. The Law Society guide to the treaty, which was published earlier this year, states:
	"There are five areas in which the UK and other EU countries have agreed that the EU alone may pass new laws. None of these is new to the Treaty of Lisbon."
	I have made the point before that the Law Society is not some foreign construct aimed at undermining the established will of the United Kingdom; it has offered a considered opinion on EU competence.
	Qualified majority voting was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and others. In principle, the Government are in favour of its extension. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about some of his points about the handling of the Bill, but I understand why he made them. However, he was correct about the important dynamic that qualified majority voting creates for the United Kingdom in its negotiations with the EU. As the Committee is aware, the proposed move from qualified majority voting to double majority voting will increase the UK's share of the vote by 50 per cent. The change will improve the position of the UK and strengthen our bargaining position, as was pointed out by the author of a report by the London School of Economics.

William Cash: The Minister is going through the points made in the debate, and I understand the formality of that, but I asked a number of substantive questions and I hope that he will come to them. Does he deny that the new arrangements will effectively give power to modify Acts of Parliament, and does he think that that is the right thing to do?

Jim Murphy: I will, of course, get to the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his 46 or 50-minute speech.

James Clappison: The Minister will know that in the White Paper leading up to the 2003 negotiation, the Government vehemently opposed the extension of qualified majority voting, because they said it would undermine the role of national Parliaments. So that we can scrutinise how much name changing will happen, will the Minister tell us why he thinks the Union is so keen to have qualified majority voting on, for example, foreign affairs? Under those provisions, apart from what we might do ourselves, such matters would not come before the national Parliaments of member states. Why is the Union so keen to move to qualified majority voting that it has a special—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I reminded the hon. Gentleman during his own contribution that the debate on qualified majority voting is tomorrow. I know that the Minister has made some reference to it. I hope that he will make a brief comment at most, and then we can move on.

Jim Murphy: Of course, as usual, I will abide by your strictures, Mrs. Heal, and we may, of course, have the opportunity to debate that in tomorrow's proceedings.
	Amendment No. 39, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Wells and is supported by the hon. Members for Stone and for Rayleigh, among others, is intended to make it more difficult for the Government to make changes to terminology or numbering in other UK laws that result from the Lisbon treaty. The Bill contains a power for the Government to update terminology and numbering in existing legislation. That is a power to make purely technical changes. For example, the article numbers in the treaties will change on the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, and the co-decision procedure is renamed as the ordinary legislative procedure. Those are not changes in substance, but UK law may need to be updated to reflect such changes in terminology.
	Again, I disagree with the conclusions reached by the hon. Member for Stone, but the Committee would generally agree that he made a thoughtful contribution. I hope that he will not mind my saying that his assertion was a criticism of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It is commonly acknowledged that subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) contain relatively wide-ranging powers.

William Cash: There are one or two points to make on that. First, it is clear from the authority that I cited that, despite what was said in February 1970 during the passage of that Bill, people did not expect the provisions to be used as they have been. Secondly, they had not anticipated the question of trying to exclude judicial review. Lastly, do not these provisions contain deeming arrangements that would be retrospective?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion in respect of section 2(2), rather than section 1(2) of the 1972 Act.

William Cash: rose—

Jim Murphy: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress and if time allows and the Committee's patience bears it, I will, of course, give way to him if he so wishes.
	This reflects the powers and definitions in the general provisions in section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, which was a criticism of the much wider power that relates to the general implementation of treaties under section 2(2).

William Cash: Surely, if a mistake was made in the 1972 Act that was apparently not expected at the time, as I have explained, this is the time to put it right, not to compound the problem, when all the treaties are amalgamated into the Lisbon treaty.

Jim Murphy: I hope, rather than expect, to reassure the hon. Gentleman that a much narrower, more clearly defined power is being sought, and it relates to section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, rather than the more widely drawn section 2(2). The changes that we envisage will not involve any change of substance in existing UK legislation. This is purely a technical, updating exercise. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that the powers to update references in existing legislation is limited to reflecting
	"changes in terminology or numbering arising out of the Treaty of Lisbon."
	That is a narrowly defined power.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend will have heard me remark that clause 3 would be better drafted if the word "definition" were included in its title and if the word "terminology" were removed from subsection (3). That would lead to greater understanding of subsection (4), on which the amendment has a direct bearing. Does my hon. Friend agree? If so, will such amendments be tabled in another place? If he does not agree, perhaps he will briefly explain why?

Jim Murphy: Of course, I will happily do so. My hon. Friend has paid assiduous attention to every twist and turn of the Bill almost every day, and the Committee should give him the credit that he is fully entitled to. I listened with great care to the points that he made, and my view is that it would be unnecessary to make the changes that he suggests. Clause 3 will amend section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, which, of course, as the Committee will be aware, lists the definitions contained in that Act. Amendment of the 1972 Act is required only to reflect changes of terminology, which is what clause 3 is all about.
	Let me make some progress on the argument. The Government need to ensure that all existing references to the European Community are updated and that other technical changes are made—for instance, reference to the numbers of treaty articles or the names of instruments and procedures. We need to be sure that that is done thoroughly, to ensure legal certainty.
	There is no point in progressing along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Wells in respect of the affirmative procedure. The Government have referred in the Bill to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Subsection (5)(c) contains the words:
	"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	That is the better way to progress. Under amendment No. 39, we would have to return to the House for each and every minor change of terminology, on the many hundreds of occasions that that may be necessary. The Bill will avoid that exercise, and it is clearly provided that any order will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution. If the treaty is ratified and we do not update the terminology in our legislation, confusion and uncertainty could arise.
	Finally, the powers are very closely defined in clause 3(4), and those narrow powers are reflected in the schedule. With those words, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee to oppose amendment No. 39.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the support for my amendment expressed in several quarters, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and, slightly unexpectedly, by the Liberal Democrats, who support my amendment, although, as usual, for the wrong reasons. I must also mention the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Although we disagree about the substance of the treaty, his contribution to the debate certainly helped to analyse the issue, and his point was a good one: this is one of the very few occasions in these debates when we have been able to devote sufficient attention to one aspect of the Bill. The line-by-line scrutiny that we were promised has been comprehensively forgotten and that promise broken, but today at least we have been able to ventilate these issues at some length.
	The key point in my amendment is simply that clause 3(4) and (5) will give a power to the Secretary of State or the Treasury to make amendments to existing United Kingdom laws and statutory instruments, and some of those laws have been on the statute book for many years. That is supposedly to reflect changes in terminology, but it is quite clear from the way the clause has been drafted that it is not limiting. It does not strictly confine such amendments to the making of technical name changes, as suggested by the Minister. If such changes were strictly confined to making differences of name or number, that would have been stated in the Bill. However, those amendments simply have to reflect changes in terminology.
	At the start of the debate, I gave examples of where apparent changes in terminology in fact make substantive changes. The change from EC to EU is not simply a technical change, because the EU will include not simply all those matters in the existing EC treaty, but all the intergovernmental matters in foreign and security policy and in justice and home affairs. I gave some other examples, to which the Minister has completely failed to respond.
	I instanced specific statutory modifications that we know the Government want to make because they are listed in the previous Bill, which was introduced in 2005 to give effect to the constitutional treaty. Those modifications include amendments to the Export Control Act 2002 that will bring into British law provisions and obligations in the common foreign policy that prevent people from exporting goods and making technology transfers. The modifications also include alterations to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that completely change it by including reference not to the intergovernmental method of deciding criminal justice matters, but to the new measures in the treaty of Lisbon, which collapse the intergovernmental pillar and make criminal justice matters subject to the European Court of Justice and normal decision making through majority voting.
	The Minister owed us an explanation and a response to the detailed questions that I asked him about the amendments to British and UK law that we know the Government want to make—amendments that are not simply technical, but involve matters of substance. In view of the Minister's poor response, I shall press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 55, page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (6).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 56, page 2, line 14, leave out 'or instrument made under an Act'.
	No. 57, page 2, line 15, leave out 'or instrument'.

William Cash: Amendment No. 55 concerns the way in which Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under Acts of Parliament will be treated as referring to the European Union rather than to the Community, which is a similar issue to that covered in the previous debate. I do not intend to speak for more than a short time, because I raised most of the issues that I want to address in the previous debate. Furthermore, I encapsulated the fundamental question about the merger of the treaties in the speech that I made about an hour ago.
	Clause 3(6) does not specifically refer to "Changes of terminology", but to
	"an Act or instrument made under an Act",
	which is very wide. It refers to all Acts, including the European Communities Act 1972, so it is not confined to any one Act.
	Subsection (6) also contains the phrase:
	"a reference to all or any of the Communities",
	which relates to my point about the merger of the existing treaties. I objected to, remain concerned about and would oppose again, if I had the opportunity to do so, the intergovernmental arrangements under the Maastricht treaty, because they provide for European government rather than European trade. Irrespective of the question whether there is intergovernmentalism, the collapse of the pillars and the fact that the existing treaties will be merged into a Union and will overtake the Community, my fundamental objection to the way in which the whole of the European Union is being relentlessly integrated is that the arrangements involve European government rather than European trade. I am in favour of an association of nation states—as a matter of fact, I would prefer to return to the European Free Trade Association.
	Subsection (6) states:
	"In an Act or instrument made under an Act a reference to all or any of the Communities shall, in the application of the enactment or instrument after the passing of this Act, be treated as being or including (as the context requires) a reference to the EU."
	That is a deeming arrangement, and it is effectively a retrospective arrangement. For both those reasons, I take exception to it, which is why I want it left out. It does include the European Communities Act 1972. As people pay more attention to the issue in future, as and when it arises, they will find that unexpected things will be done under the arrangements which will have consequences that people do not at present anticipate. My objection is that the provision is not only about terminology—it has certain substantial consequences. The issue links back to the merger of the treaties, to which I object, and relates to a deeming or retrospective provision, to which I take exception.

Stewart Hosie: In arguing that subsection (6) should be amended, is the hon. Gentleman not going through the same arguments as those on the previous group of amendments? Subsection (6) is a consequence of the treaty and this Bill. Although some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments may be right and he may be opposed in principle, is he not arguing about a consequence of the treaty and the Bill, and no more than that?

William Cash: I do not wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but the issue is different in respect of the arrangements under the earlier subsections. In discussing those, we were dealing exclusively with terminology; now, we are dealing with the deeming of an Act. The idea is that there is a retrospective deeming of the wording and that that involves more than terminology because it has constitutional implications. However, frankly, although it is objectionable, I do not think that the issue is of the same order of concern as the previous proposals relating to whether there should be an affirmative or negative procedure and the whole question of the modification of Acts of Parliament through statutory instruments. That is as much as I need to say on the provision so I shall sit down.

Mark Francois: Amendment No. 55 seeks to delete subsection (6) from clause 3. As we have seen from our discussion of amendment No. 39, clause 3 gives legal force in domestic United Kingdom law to the Lisbon treaty's collapse of the separate European Community pillars, which include among other things the single market and the common agricultural policy, into the European Union's new unitary legal identity, which will also incorporate the currently legally distinct common foreign and security policy and co-operation in police and criminal justice matters.
	On the international level, terminological changes flowing from and supporting that fundamental change are made to existing European Community CFSP and police and criminal justice Acts brought in under the current treaties by article 5(3) of the Lisbon treaty. The laws will continue to have force until they are amended or repealed under the new treaty provisions. Article 5(3) of the Lisbon treaty provides that all existing references in those laws to the titles, sections and numbering of the treaties will be automatically understood to refer to the titles, sections and numbering of the treaties as amended by the Lisbon treaty.
	Clause 3 seeks to amend UK legislation to keep it in line with those changes at EU level. To that end, subsection (6) seeks to provide for a blanket change in how terminology in existing UK law will thereafter be understood. Specifically, it says that any instance of "European Communities" shall be treated as a reference to the "European Union".
	As we have seen, those changes can have wide-ranging importance due to the fact that the new EU will be far wider than the existing European Community. In particular, the change in the meaning of all UK law currently referring to the European Communities could, depending on the UK laws in question, give domestic legal effect to common foreign and security policy provisions, despite the fact that the Bill excludes the CFSP from the definition given to the EU treaties in the 1972 Act. That is because the term "EU" alone is not restricted to the 1972 Act's definition of the EU treaties—as provided in clause 3(1) of the Bill, it includes everything under the EU exactly as it is provided for in the treaty on European Union at international level. That means the common foreign and security policy as well.
	Our key objection to subsection (6) is that it is such a blanket provision, the true consequences of which we cannot know without examining every individual change that it would make to each of the affected EU laws. For that reason, the subsection is not only potentially somewhat dangerous but unnecessary because, as we saw during our debate on the previous group of amendments, clause 3(4) and (5) already give the Government the power to make orders to vary the terminology of any references in UK law that have not already been provided in the schedule to the Bill.
	We have already stated that we believe that orders made under subsections (4) and (5) should be made only by the affirmative procedure so that we can better scrutinise the effect that each would have. I am disappointed that the House did not see fit to agree to that amendment, but the argument was nevertheless put and debated. Clause 3(6) is also a potential problem, as changes made under that provision are not even subject to the negative procedure.
	Under clause 3, the changes in each instance are automatic and outside the scope of parliamentary scrutiny and are therefore unwelcome. Amendment No. 55 will improve the Bill without wrecking it, by allowing for all terminological changes in UK legislation following the Lisbon treaty, were it to be ratified, to be brought before Parliament for scrutiny, to ensure that the changes were really only terminological and were otherwise acceptable to the legislature.

William Cash: I want only to make reference to my hon. Friend's point that my amendment would improve the Bill without wrecking it; I would be extremely glad for the Bill to be wrecked.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend and I have both opposed the Bill from the outset. However, it is important to make it clear to the House, should we divide, that amendment No. 55 is a procedural one that would not wreck the treaty, although it would, for the reasons that he—and I, pretty much in agreement with him—have outlined, strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment would not wreck the Bill per se, but strengthen the House's powers in relation to the treaty.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Francois: May I go on to make a point about amendment No. 56? Modestly, my hon. Friend mentioned amendment No. 55, but did not go into detail about amendments Nos. 56 and 57. At the risk of infringing his copyright, I want to say a brief word about those amendments, which also stand in his name. Those amendments seek to improve clause 3(6) by limiting its blanket changes in terminology to those of Acts only. Like amendment No. 55, they would improve the Bill by limiting its unforeseen consequences, so we think that they also deserve support.
	Clause 3(6) contains a blanket change to the terminology of wide swathes of domestic UK legislation without any detailed parliamentary scrutiny at all. Those alterations in terminology could have substantive effects. Amendment No. 55, which we on the Conservative Front Bench are minded to support should my hon. Friend wish to press it to a Division, seeks to remedy the situation by deleting subsection (6) in a way that would not wreck the Bill in its entirety. If the amendment is agreed to, important changes in British law could be brought before Parliament for specific approval. That would improve the Bill and deserves our support.

James Clappison: I echo the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). This does not seem to be as important as the previous provision as regards transparency, but there are still one or two questions in my mind. In the light of what my hon. Friend said, could the Minister give us a list of the types of Communities that are referred to in subsection (6)? We know about the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom, but since it refers to
	"all or any of the Communities",
	can he tell us which particular ones?
	Will the Minister give us a sense of where this sits in the whole constitutional debate? Part of the purpose of the original constitution was to bring the same terminology into play throughout the various legal provisions relating to the European Community as it was, or the European Union, as it is now.
	When the Minister made his original winding-up speech, I did not hear him reply to my question about the German questionnaire, which is also relevant in this context.

William Cash: There are those of us who believe that the German questionnaire is only part of the German question.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, as always.
	Do the Government have any plans to publish that, and if not, why not?

Jim Murphy: I am delighted, and modestly surprised, to be responding to this debate so early in our proceedings, but glad that I have prepared a couple of hours in response.
	I am not sure whether the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) were intended to wreck the Bill, as he suggests—I think that he is being unfair on his amendments—but I acknowledge his avowed intention to wreck the Bill, and therefore the treaty.
	Let me turn to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised in respect of amendment No. 55; he mentioned amendments Nos. 56 and 57 only in passing, although the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) eloquently and pre-emptively amplified the unspoken sentiment behind them. The amendments attack the reality of the situation—that the Lisbon treaty replaces the Community with the Union. If the UK, with Parliament's approval, ratified the treaty, it would be senseless to seek to deny that reality.
	As we heard in the previous debate, clause 3 deals with the changes in terminology and numbering resulting from the Lisbon treaty.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister is talking about changes to terminology and numbering. However, the argument in favour of the amendments to subsection (6) appeared to be that if we rename the Communities as the Union, that will somehow give authority or precedence to the EU, particularly in relation to the common foreign and security policy. That would make it constitutional and would therefore raise certain issues. What is the Minister's view on this matter, and does he believe that this change would, even on a single occasion, give precedence to EU law on common foreign and security policy matters?

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place and playing such an active part in our proceedings. I could not often say this: on occasion during this debate, the SNP's showing has been as large as, if not larger than, the official Opposition's Back-Bench showing. At the moment, it is half the number of Conservative Back Benchers, but half of two is one, and we are nevertheless delighted to see him.
	As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, the CFSP is intergovernmental and does not apply directly in UK law; it already falls under the auspices of the EU, not the Communities. He can therefore be reassured on that point.

James Clappison: Can the Minister tell us what would be the legal position in the Communities under the provisions of these treaties if the Union seized on a foreign policy issue and was determined, by unanimity or by the procedures involving qualified majority voting, to take a particular course? Can the United Kingdom then legally take a different course under the provisions of these treaties?

Jim Murphy: I will not be tempted to stray too far down that path, Mrs. Heal, because you would rightly prevent me from doing so. On the specific point, that issue would not arise because strategic decision making on foreign policy is by unanimity. We would not need to block such changes through a legal procedure, but we would do so politically by not giving our agreement in a unanimous process.
	Amendment No. 55 focuses on clause 3. The hon. Member for Stone was fair enough to say that this is an anodyne version of our previous debate—that was not his exact phrase, but—

William Cash: I said that there were aspects of the other debate that I did not want to replicate in this one, but that does not mean that I thought it was anodyne, and I will tell the Minister why. The explanatory memorandum, which gives the Government's explanation of all this, says:
	"Article 1(2)(b) of the Treaty of Lisbon inserts in Article 1 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) a new third paragraph as follows:
	'The [European] Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union...Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.'"
	To the extent that once that point is—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments, but they are rather lengthy for an intervention. He will have an opportunity shortly to wind up the debate and explain his point further.

Jim Murphy: This evening we have had the hon. Gentleman's shortest speech and longest intervention.
	The provision that is the focus of amendment No. 55 is, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, perhaps not anodyne, but less significant than what we discussed earlier. Clause 3 provides that after the passing of the Bill references to the Communities in UK law should be read as references to the Union. That is a purely technical change. In response to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) as regards subsection (6), the Lisbon treaty replaces the European Community with the European Union, so all existing legislation that refers to the European Community, to the Community or to the Communities needs to be updated to reflect the changes in terminology, and that is clearly the intention of the subsection. Amendment No. 55 would delete that provision altogether. In the light of what I just explained to the House about the purpose and effect of clause 3(6), I cannot see that the amendment makes any sense whatsoever.
	Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, taken together, would mean that while the type of consequential change that clause 3(6) makes could be made in respect of primary law—that is, Acts of Parliament—they could not be made in respect of secondary law, which is the bread and butter of much European business.

William Cash: If the Minister thinks that this is such a bad amendment, he should recall what I said in the previous debate about the impact on the secondary legislation that he mentioned. Those statutory instruments can modify Acts of Parliament, exclude judicial review and address a whole range of other matters, including constitutional issues. If I were the Minister, I would be a bit careful about asserting that the use of the word "instrument" in this case is as unimportant as he is making it out to be, because it contains within it a Henry VIII clause-type arrangement.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and I have spent long enough together in this Chamber during the past few weeks for him to know that I am always careful when making my case on such matters—as is he.
	The changes proposed will not make any changes of substance to existing legislation. If the treaty is ratified and we do not update the terminology of our legislation, there will be considerable legal confusion and uncertainty. Getting rid of the entirely sensible provisions in the clause will merely make life more complicated in a legal sense and create uncertainty. There are literally hundreds of Acts and statutory instruments that make reference to the European Communities, which would be affected by the amendment. If the amendment were accepted, technical changes would have to be made one by one. For example, the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (England) Regulations 2004 or the Food (Peanuts from China) (Emergency Control) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 would have to be individually changed.
	We can all take different views on such important matters, but to deny the legislative reality of the ratification of the treaty and the passing of the Bill by frustrating the workings of the House to ensure that individual changes had to be made to many hundreds of existing provisions, just two of which I cited for the House's enjoyment, would not be a sensible way to progress. On that basis, while continuing to respect the motivation behind the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stone, I invite the House to reject it if he wishes to press it to a Division.

William Cash: I certainly will press the amendment to a Division, not least because, as the Minister just said, the provisions affect hundreds of enactments. It is all very well to say, "It is just a matter of terminology; it is only a matter of words." But, almost by admission, the Minister has suggested that he does not know what impact the provision will have. I am totally unconvinced by his arguments for that reason. If he does not know why he is doing something, that is a good reason for us to challenge the basis on which it is done.
	I shall press the amendment to a Division, but before I do so, I refer to the explanatory notes, which state:
	"Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community."
	The question that remains unanswered is what impact that will have. I believe that the clause will have constitutional implications. It merges the treaties. This is not just a matter of terminology, but a matter of substance and constitutional importance. Therefore, I am determined to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Lord: With this we may discuss whether the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Jim Murphy: As I said earlier, clause 3 does two things. First, it makes technical changes to the terminology in UK law to reflect the Lisbon treaty. Secondly, it provides a power for a Secretary of State to make orders to amend primary or secondary legislation to reflect other technical changes in terminology or numbering that arise from the Lisbon treaty. The changes are technical and should be uncontroversial. Nevertheless, they are necessary.
	The clause ensures continuity and consistency in new and existing domestic legislation. It also gives power to make similar technical changes by order, which will not mean a change of substance to existing UK legislation. There is no point in the suggested alternative approach of making consequential amendments in definitions to change "EC" to "EU". If clause 3 were removed, we would be left with legal confusion about important legislation that refers to the "European Communities", such as clause 24 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which establishes in UK law the way in which elections to the European Parliament work in the UK. It sets the boundaries of electoral regions and determines how our voting system should work for those elections.
	We have had a good general debate on the clause. Without it, Parliament would have to amend each of the hundreds of Acts, regulations and statutory instruments that refer to "European Communities".
	The schedule is standard and clearly sets out the nomenclature changes to the 1972 Act. The Bill is designed to amend the 1972 Act and, as Conservative Members know, it provides for changes to the horizontal Act for interpreting UK law—the Interpretation Act 1978. Those changes obviously and clearly follow from the treaty.

Mark Francois: I wish to argue to the contrary: that clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill. Our discussions on amendments Nos. 39, 55, 56 and 57 have shown that the clause tries to include in UK domestic law the changes in terminology that effect the virtual collapse of the EU's existing pillar system. As we all know, the EU is currently only an umbrella term for three distinct areas of activity, usually called "pillars". The three pillars are: the European Communities, the main part of which is the European Community, which includes the single market and the common agricultural policy; the common foreign and security policy; and police, justice and home affairs.
	Under the treaty, the existing pillars will be virtually abolished. The European Community has merged with the European Union into a single unitary legal personality, incorporating all activity undertaken under the EU treaties, although Euratom would admittedly remain separate, as was pointed out earlier. Police and criminal justice matters are also subsumed into the same institutional provisions and decision-making processes that applied in what was the European Community.
	The common foreign and security policy, although remaining subject to distinct procedures, as was largely the case under the original EU constitution, is also brought under the same single EU legal personality. All this will have important effects on the respective rights of the member states and the EU to conclude agreements with third countries and will of course interact with the new provision on implied competence in the article on exclusive competence. The changes in terminology set out in the clause reflect those profound changes and give them legal force in domestic United Kingdom legislation. Among other things, the clause changes, almost automatically as it were, all references in UK law to any or all of the "European Communities" to the "European Union".
	As we heard in our discussion on amendment No. 39, changes in terminology might sound dull to the external observer, but they matter—in fact, they matter quite a lot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed to examples of where changes in the references to the EU treaties made by United Kingdom laws could lead to substantive alterations in the effect of UK laws. He detailed, at some length, a number of examples that I do not intend to reprise again, but they will all be in  Hansard. I reiterate that there is a particular concern where a current domestic law gives effect in the UK only to European Community obligations, but where, following a change in the terminology to "European Union", it gives domestic effect to additional provisions, too.
	As my right hon. Friend also highlighted, the Government seemed to be far more forthcoming about the sorts of changes that they were seeking in their Bill to ratify the original EU constitution, allowing at least some parliamentary scrutiny of those changes as part of the passage of that Bill. That leaves a burning question. Why have the Government been so coy about what the supposed terminological changes will entail in this Bill? Might the reason be that they are trying to hide the fact that some of the changes to UK law resulting from the Lisbon treaty are in fact important, seeking, in effect, to park them behind the old façade of a "tidying-up exercise", which they have sought to use all the way through, to disguise the important transfers of power being made from this House to the European Union?

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that our suspicions that the process that he describes is in play are increased by the fact that it was what the German questionnaire specifically suggested the Government would do? Does he share my curiosity about why the Government refuse to publish their response to the German questionnaire?

Mark Francois: My understanding is that the Government have had the German questionnaire for some considerable time. Even with all the problems in our postal service, I would have thought that they could have sent back something by now. One would also have expected them to be in a position to publish their response.

Alistair Burt: Perhaps they have lost it.

Mark Francois: That is possible if the Government put their response on two discs.
	If we assume that the Government did not do that, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who serves on the European Scrutiny Committee, has made an important point. When we were debating amendments, the Minister twice ducked his question about why the Government's response had not been published. Perhaps we can put the Minister on the spot in this slighter broader stand part debate and ask him why the response has not been published and when the Government propose to publish it. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about that question, which I am sure the Minister will now feel morally obliged to answer.

Iain Duncan Smith: I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who made a very good speech, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) discussing their amendments, which dealt with questions that were never answered. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause gets to the heart of the matter, because it is a "trust me" clause? The Government are essentially saying, "Don't worry about all this stuff. We'll tidy this up and get on with it in due course. You don't need to worry your pretty little heads any more about the European Union treaty. We'll deal with it." Is there any reason at all why we should trust Governments on that, when we were given a constitutional guarantee at Maastricht that the pillar system would remain?

Mark Francois: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. He homes in on the issue of trust. The Government have broken their word so many times throughout this process—on the referendum and on the promise that we would have 20 days' debate and line-by-line scrutiny. Their word has been undermined so many times that for them to come to the Committee and say, as my right hon. Friend put it, "Trust me," rings extremely hollow. His point is very well made.

William Cash: Has my hon. Friend also noted that subsection (1) inserts a definition of the EU into section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, referring to the European Union by reference to the treaty of Maastricht, which established it? I do not invite my hon. Friend to go too far, but he might understand why I am so opposed to the proposals. Regrettably, had other counsel prevailed at the time, we would not be in our current position, because it is the European Union that creates European government. It is the amendments that we are discussing that have caused so much constitutional difficulty.

Mark Francois: I am prepared to make a small wager that my hon. Friend will make a speech of his own in this stand part debate—I will not get odds on the wager, but I am prepared to make it. If he indeed makes a contribution, I suspect that he will develop that point at great length.
	To return to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made, we can all agree that for the Government to come to the Committee and say, in effect, "Trust us," will simply not wash.

Stewart Hosie: There is no doubt that the treaty is basically the constitution. As we have heard over the past few weeks, there are elements of the proposals that are definitely constitutional in nature, which is why we will back a referendum. However, I have yet to hear a single example of how anything in the clause or the terminological changes in the schedule would cause UK law to be usurped by EU law, and I would therefore be grateful to hear one.

Mark Francois: I think that the hon. Gentleman was here in the earlier debate, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells gave quite an extensive list of when that would happen—I see a number of heads nodding in the Chamber. Was the hon. Gentleman here then?

Stewart Hosie: I fear that I was.

Mark Francois: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will know that a list was given, and he can read it in  Hansard if he wants to. I have already given one example of how the provisions can interact with the common foreign and security policy, so I hope that that satisfies him. However, if he wants more detail, the nice people in  Hansard will print the debate out and he can read it over his breakfast in the morning.

William Cash: I may be able to help my hon. Friend on that point, so will he be kind enough to give way?

Mark Francois: My late mother was Italian, so I understand the concept of "an offer you can't refuse".

William Cash: The point that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) raised was answered by the Minister, who said that there were hundreds of Acts of Parliament that require changes. Therefore, it follows by definition that the Government themselves are admitting that the whole issue is replete with changes.

Mark Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for his help.
	I think that we have, by now, made the point that a large number of changes would go through almost automatically if clause 3 were allowed to stand part of the Bill. As we have also heard, as a result of the clause as drafted—which, unfortunately, we have been unable to amend—many changes to United Kingdom law would overwhelmingly go through under the negative resolution procedure. That would make it easier for the Government to put through that large number of changes than would be the case under the affirmative resolution procedure, and more difficult for Parliament to scrutinise them effectively.
	Amendment No. 39 would have improved the Bill by compelling the Government to bring the orders before Parliament, so that we could examine whether the changes were as innocuous as the Government claimed. We have also discussed amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57. They would have taken out subsection (6), which allows for a blanket change in the terminology of our domestic legislation without any specific discussion at all. This part of the Bill could make wide-ranging changes, yet, for the most part, the Government have not really explained the extent of the potential alterations. They have attempted to give the impression that clause 3 is a tidying-up exercise to keep things neat and tidy. They have not explained adequately the range and extent of the changes that could take place if clause 3 were to stand part of the Bill.
	The clause sets out wide-ranging changes to the terminology of our domestic legislation. As we have seen, the Government will be given powers to make further orders under the clause by negative resolution. Those orders, as well as the blanket power given under clause 3 (6), could have wide-ranging effects on the obligations that our citizens are under, and they should therefore be scrutinised in greater detail by Parliament. Given that clause 3 would lead to such changes being made with very little scrutiny, I propose, in response to the Minister's comments, that clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill.

Edward Davey: It has given me great pleasure to be able to support the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and some of his colleagues in the votes tonight, be they on the procedure motion, or on amendment No. 39. I disagree, however, with his position on clause 3 stand part. I do not believe that it is a stalking horse or that it contains all the risks that he outlined. I have looked at it, and it seems to be very much an issue of terminology qua terminology, rather than the behind-the-scenes creator of major constitutional change that he fears.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Maastricht treaty introduced the European Union and its pillar system. It is clear that that system is collapsing somewhat under Lisbon, although not quite as clear as he and some of his colleagues have suggested. That is particularly the case in respect of the UK. Justice and home affairs are being merged into pillar one for all member states, but that will not affect the UK in the same way, because of the UK's opt-ins. We debated this matter when we looked at justice and home affairs, and we really carried the day during that debate. An extraordinary aspect of the Lisbon treaty is the fact that the Government negotiated not only opt-ins for new areas of justice and home affairs such as police and criminal justice co-operation, but new opt-ins for areas of justice and home affairs in respect of which powers had already been given away in previous treaties, particularly Maastricht and Rome.

William Cash: The thing that is increasingly troubling me about the Liberals' position on this is that, although they are prepared to make minor forays into supporting us on the less important amendments, they will not support us on clause stand part. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could deal with this point, because I get the impression that they are doing that because they want their election addresses to make it appear that they had opposed some aspects of the treaty. They want it to look as though they did not really want it, but that they went along with it because they are in favour of a federal Europe in principle.

Edward Davey: That is quite extraordinary. The fact is that we all voted for the Bill on Second Reading. In my party, we are all pro-European, unlike the hon. Gentleman. It is no secret that we disagree with him on almost every aspect of European Union policy. That is not something that we attempt to hide.

Mark Francois: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe that 13 Liberal Democrat MPs abstained on Second Reading. Is that right?

Edward Davey: Well—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Whether they abstained because they were not here or because they deliberately did not like it— [ Interruption. ] I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I noticed quite a lot of his colleagues voting for the treaty, which was completely against his Front-Bench position, so he ought to be very careful when talking about which way different parties' MPs voted on Second Reading.
	There is a danger that I am going to be diverted from the issue. I just want to finish my point on justice and home affairs and the way that that relates to clause 3. I want to quote Michael Dougan, an academic at Liverpool university, who has talked about how the justice and home affairs issues will be changed under the Lisbon treaty. He has said:
	"The combined effect of those provisions would be that the UK participates in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to a lesser degree under the Lisbon Treaty than it does under the existing treaties."
	Observations such as those give the lie to some of the concerns that people, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, have raised. It is simply not the case that we would be giving away all the UK's powers in justice and home affairs—quite the contrary.

Kelvin Hopkins: Like so many others of his view, the hon. Gentleman constantly refers to Europe, rather than to the European Union. He says that his party is "pro-European". Well, I am very pro-Europe, but I am not in favour of the imposition of the European Union on the majority of the states of Europe. That is a serious distinction that he ought to bear in mind.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman wants to imagine a Europe without the European Union, I am sure that he, and others around the House, will do so. I would suggest, however, that it would be a land of fantasy because he would not be able to build a Europe without the European Union.
	My final point is on the way in which the common foreign and security policy relates to the pillar system. Although I do not seek to deny that the pillar system is collapsing, as envisaged under Maastricht, it is hard to deny that the common foreign and security policy remains intergovernmental. There is total unanimity on those issues. Indeed, we have debated the matter at length. Clause 2 of the Bill will add the Lisbon treaty to UK law. It will do so, however,
	"excluding any provision that relates to, or in so far as it relates to or could be applied in relation to, the Common Foreign and Security Policy".
	That is a pretty watertight exclusion.
	I do not believe that clause 3 will present the problems that have been envisaged. It seems genuinely to be a tidying-up measure. If other colleagues wish to press the matter to a vote, we will therefore support its standing part of the Bill.

Douglas Carswell: I am arguing that clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill. I believe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said, the treaty would merge the separate pillars into a unified system and a unified entity. In so doing, it would hand more power over to remote EU officials. It would put power over consumer protection, criminal sanctions and judicial matters in the hands of remote and unaccountable EU officialdom. That process of aggrandising EU officialdom is deeply flawed.
	Some honestly argue that we should pass these powers to remote officials and that doing so is a good thing, but I do not see how it can possibly be argued that handing more power to remote EU officials can be a good thing, given how badly those officials have exercised such powers as they already have. Before we could justify giving EU officials more power, we need to ask why such officials, who lack proper democratic accountability, have been so disastrous at managing such things as the common fisheries policy and so disastrous at regulating our economy, thereby subjecting our small businesses to so much additional regulation.
	It is often suggested that the treaty somehow democratises the EU. For example, the idea has been put about that it will give some sort of right of initiative, which will somehow make EU institutions more democratically accountable. That is very far-fetched. Far from making the EU more democratic, it makes it a technocracy, in which decisions are in the hands of unaccountable officials. If people are so convinced that the treaty will improve the EU and make it so much more democratic, surely we should have a referendum on it and let the people decide.
	We recently saw how private polling in referendums held in a number of constituencies showed an extraordinarily high number of ordinary people wanting a referendum and being very opposed to this treaty. It is precisely because of provisions such as clause 3, which are about the aggrandisement of power among EU institutions, that people feel so alienated and hostile to the Bill. It strikes me as extraordinary that in many constituencies, more people should oppose the treaty in these referendums than bothered to vote in the last set of European elections.
	I conclude my comments by saying that in the two or three short years that I have been an MP, I have noticed how the alienation and contempt of voters for the entire Westminster political process is growing. It is difficult for Members, if they are honest, to overlook or ignore the fact that politicians are increasingly held in contempt. The political process is more and more detached from the people it is meant to serve.
	There are two reasons for that. The first is the immediate reason that about 90 per cent. of hon. Members in this Chamber promised the electorate a referendum on this treaty, so it looks as if we have reneged on that promise— [Interruption.]—I am saying that it looks as if the majority of MPs has collectively reneged on it. More profoundly, as the House has handed away its decision-making powers and as we have given EU officials more and more responsibility over decisions that affect everyday life, people have increasingly come to see the occupants of this House as parasitical. It matters not, they think, who they vote for, because the key decisions that affect their lives are taken by remote officialdom.
	If we wish to restore people's trust in politics and their belief that by voting for us they can materially improve public services, their lives and the country as a whole, we must restore decision-making powers to this House. The clause does not do that; it moves power upwards rather than downwards, pushing power in the wrong direction. That is why we should oppose the clause and the Bill.

Peter Lilley: There are three reasons why the clause should not be allowed to stand part of the Bill. The first relates to the importance of the clause. My right hon. and hon. Friends have demonstrated that it will have a more substantive impact than first meets the eye. In many respects, the impact may be indirect, but Conservative Members have spelled out at length why the consequences will be quite substantial.
	I accept, however, that the clause is manifestly less important than many of the clauses that relate to issues that the House has not debated at all. We spent a whole day debating carbon trading, but only six words of the existing European Union treaties were being changed. Now we have just a part of today to debate this particular clause, which has a multiple of that number of words and probably far greater ramifications. The clause is also manifestly less important than all the treaty provisions relating to immigration, border controls and asylum, which we have not debated at all.
	We should not let this clause stand part unless and until we have debated at length, properly and fully those other issues, under other clauses, which have so far passed undebated, and which the Minister intends shall not be debated at all. Precisely because this issue is less important than others, we should not let it get on to the statute book until those more important issues are debated, or we are given a promise that they will be debated.
	Secondly, the clause should not stand part because of its opacity. At the very least, it is difficult to understand what it is about and what its impact will be. That is not just because it is necessarily difficult and complex, but because it and the whole structure of the treaty and the Bill are deliberately opaque. Our European partners decided to make the treaty opaque because it had to look different from the constitution, which had been rejected by the electors in France and Holland. Therefore, they deliberately opted for a procedure that would make it difficult for ordinary people, on immediate perusal of such clauses, to understand what is going on. That made it possible for them to say that the treaty is different from the constitution.
	Under the law of this country and other countries in Europe, there were two possible routes to implement the constitution. The first was to say, "Let us sweep away the existing treaties and replace them with the constitution, incorporating all the powers of the existing treaties plus several others." That was the original approach adopted—clear-cut and obvious. It was so obvious to the people of France and Holland that they decided that they did not want it, and rejected it.
	The Government then went along with their partners, who said, in terms, "Let us achieve the same result through an opaque approach. Instead of saying that we will replace the existing laws with the constitution, let us change the existing treaties clause by clause, bit by bit and word by word until we arrive at a form of words that is exactly equivalent to the constitution." The Government have adopted that route. That is the reason for clause 3, and the pages and pages of changes that it will enact, through its annexes or appendixes.

Philip Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best argument that the Liberal Democrats could seem to muster was that they could not see anything wrong with the clause? They could not say anything positive about it either. We happen to think that some problems might be lurking within it. Given that there is nothing positive to be said about it, does he agree that we should have a precautionary approach and vote against it?

Peter Lilley: My hon. Friend anticipates my third reason for rejecting the clause—that it is open-ended. It gives the Government power to make changes that they have not yet recognised will be necessary, but that they recognise may be necessary. They do not understand the full ramifications and implications of the clause. That is why it contains subsections that provide the Government with an open-ended power to change the wording of any legislation, as they see fit, to bring it into conformity with the treaty. We should not give them open-ended powers to do things that they cannot tell us about now, in this House, if necessary in a lengthy clause or amendment.
	For those three reasons, we should not allow the clause to stand part. It is manifestly less important than other aspects of the treaty that will pass undebated, and we should not allow it to stand part unless and until they are debated. The clause is deliberately opaque, reflecting the duplicitous nature of the whole operation—the introduction of a so-called reforming treaty, which is actually the constitution, lock, stock and barrel. We should not allow the clause because it is open-ended, and the Government themselves do not know the implications that will flow from it.

Michael Penning: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I want to say something about trust, which was mentioned a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). We are asking the House and the British public to trust a treaty that is a constitution in all but name. In the narrower context of our debate on whether clause 3 should stand part of the Bill, there are three aspects that I do not think either the Minister or the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), has addressed correctly.
	The debate on the Maastricht Bill was long drawn out, and very divisive for most parties in the House. One of the key aspects of the Maastricht treaty, however, was the existence of the pillars. We were promised that the pillars were safe, and would prevent the European Union from developing into a super-Union. Now here we are this evening, being told by the Liberal Democrat spokesman that the pillars have partially collapsed but "Trust us, it will all be okay."
	The British public will not trust Parliament or the Government over the pillars. They will understand from the debates that have been allowed here, and from what has been said in the press, that the breakdown of the pillars means more and more open-ended powers for the European Union, as was said a moment ago. It is hugely dangerous to tamper with pillars that prevent civil servants, and those in the system within Europe, from developing the sort of Europe that they want but the people of the country almost certainly do not.
	The other promise made to us—here I make my point about trust even more strongly—was that we would be allowed to take part in line-by-line scrutiny of this huge document, which runs to 328 pages excluding the amendments and annexes. If any members of the general public were willing to pay £30-odd for it, most of them would not understand it. Indeed, the purpose is for the British public not to understand it. It is not open, honest and frank, as we would expect a document dealt with by a British parliamentary Chamber to be; it is massively complicated. It is fundamentally wrong that the Government are forcing it through without our being able to debate it in full, and without fulfilling the promise of all three major parliamentary parties that there would be a referendum on the constitution—which is what this document is.

Michael Connarty: I have sat through a number of these debates. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—who has obviously taken the trouble to read the treaty, as I have—could identify a specific section that his constituents have raised with him, and to which they wish him to object.

Michael Penning: What my constituents have raised with me is the question of why the Government promised them a referendum on that document in front of him, and have now firmly refused to give them one. I will take no lectures about what was promised and what my constituents are concerned about. What my constituents are concerned about is the country losing its sovereignty, and ceding it to another institution.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Penning: No, I am going to press on.  [Interruption.] The answer is no, just as it is when it comes to the referendum that the country was promised.
	The position is quite simple. We are being asked to pass a clause many parts of which would mean—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said earlier—that more and more legislation would be forced through the House by affirmative resolution, without the debate that is needed, and less and less would be subject to the negative procedure. Why are we doing this? Why is the House not sitting for longer? We are not short of time in which to debate matters such as this. The House does not sit for half as long as it should. My constituents believe that it should sit for much longer, and I happen to agree. Why are we forcing through predictive legislation on which we can have no debate whatsoever? That is fundamentally wrong.

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Michael Penning: I told the hon. Member that I would not give way. If he wants to speak, he can stand up and make a speech.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I realise that these issues arouse emotions, but I think it would be a good idea for us to debate them a little more calmly.

Michael Penning: If hon. Members want to make speeches in this House, Sir Michael, they can catch your eye rather than making silly party political points.

Mark Hendrick: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Is it in order for a Member to call at length for a debate and then not allow an intervention—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The debate so far today has been conducted in a very sensible, thoughtful and orderly way. I suggest we continue in that vein.

Michael Penning: I could not agree with you more, Sir Michael, and it is such a shame that silly comments have come from the Labour Benches.
	I have been inundated with constituents' concerns about the future defence of this country and the effect the treaty will have on our armed forces and our commitments to the European army that the EU is trying to set up. We are not able to debate that, sadly, which is enormously undemocratic. When Labour Members bother to stand up to speak later, they will talk about the defence of this nation, something about which my constituents are particularly concerned.
	I hope that we will vote against stand part because the clause is such an undemocratic part of the treaty and we should have a referendum on the whole thing.

Iain Duncan Smith: I had not intended to speak to this clause, but I shall do so as I was unable to speak in the earlier debates.
	Today is the first time that I have felt that the Chamber has done its job. It has interrogated the Minister—an old footballing friend whom I congratulate on his courtesy—and we have been able to get to the nub of the issue. I listened to two excellent speeches; one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the other from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who made two telling points on fine detail, which is critical.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) that the clause is not necessarily the most important element in the Bill. None the less, we must oppose it for two reasons. First, I agree with my right hon. Friend that previously we have not had the opportunity to undertake the level of scrutiny that was promised to us. I was stupid enough to believe the Prime Minister when he said that we would have line-by-line scrutiny. I did not realise that he meant "line-by-line" to mean two lines, rather than every single line of the Bill. I now know what he meant: we would discuss the title and the end of the Bill, and that would be good enough. I never agreed with the nonsense of the Second Reading debate at the beginning of every day and I refused to speak in them because they have ripped the heart out of what the House is about. I came to speak to amendments on defence to which I had attached my name but I was unable to do so.
	One of the important reasons why we should oppose this and every clause is that none of them so far has had enough debate and scrutiny to allow us to give the right attention to detail. Detail is what we do in this place. I have heard it called petty or trivial detail; the truth is that the House is about detail, and the grandstanding speeches that have been made are less important and less relevant to how the treaty will affect our legislation.
	The second point was that the clause gives form to a substantial element of change in the treaty: the partial collapse of the pillars, as the Liberal Democrats put it. It seems to me that when a house collapses, it collapses; it can partially collapse or fully collapse, but try living in it afterwards. In this so-called partial collapse, we have collapsed a huge undertaking made at the time of the Maastricht debates. I never believed the Government on the EU anyway, whether Conservative or Labour. I stand by that even today. I think that I was right about this matter. Undertakings were made at the time about what would happen to us subsequently: we were given undertakings that because of the new pillar construct, we would be protected thereafter from any further incursions—the tide had been stemmed and all would be reversed. That cannot honestly be said to be what has happened. Those pillars were pillars not just of the whole process of the EU, but of an argument that said, "We have reached the high point and thereafter all will be changed." We should therefore oppose the clause because it breaks a previous Government's commitment on the EU treaties. The change from the European Community to the European Union is not a minor one; to be fair, Labour Members have not pretended that it was. It is not just a terminological change, but a major change to how everything flows and the legal context.
	We should also oppose the clause as it is based on the idea that all that flows from it will come from a kindly Government who will only ever do the right things and make the right changes. I and hon. Friends tabled an amendment to strike out clause 3(6) for that very reason—because the extent of this is almost limitless. Of course the Government will say to us, as all Governments have always said to us, "You can trust us as we have the best interests of the British nation at heart." I am sure that all Governments believe that. I do not think for one moment that the Minister would try to sell the country down the river; he believes that what he is doing is right and that the Government would resist any change. The problem is that there is a natural dimension to this: this whole process of change from within the European Community—now the European Union—has a dimension that overcomes Government resistance. In due course, more and more will change and flow from this, and Governments will go along with it. In fact, we get so casual with secondary legislation that it flows through this place like a river in spate. There is so little that we ever do about it. We nod through measures that we should never nod through. Admittedly, there are good Select Committees that try to pinpoint things that go wrong. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of one such Committee, is present, and I congratulate him. They are, however, like the little boy with his finger in the dyke. The truth is that we will be overcome—in fact, we are overcome. More and more power is taken away from Members of this House and put into the hands of the Government, and exercised in due course on behalf of the EU. Therefore, I do not trust Governments either of my own persuasion or of the other political persuasion when they say, "Trust me."
	This House should never trust Governments. That is what we are here for. Why do we sit on these Benches if all we want to do is give way to the Government? We should never trust them for one simple reason. Our history over hundreds of years is bound up in this clause, because it is about us not trusting them; it is about us fighting to take back powers, not about giving them to another body to be exercised via the Government. That is why I feel strongly about the clause, and why we should resist it. It is alien to the entire way we believe we should operate. We were elected here not to trust, but to spell out. Our trust should be placed in the words in front of us, not in what a Government say might be their meaning in 10 years. If we do not believe what their meaning is said to be, but instead believe that they would allow a Government to extend things beyond and far into the future, we should say no. Even if that does not happen, we should say no because that is a power we have no right to give them.

Michael Connarty: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) even though I think he accused me—or Select Committees in general, perhaps—of giving the finger to the Government. I deny the charge, even though I do not deny the temptation.
	I recall that the right hon. Gentleman received an award at the end of last year, and that I received one on the same day. I said something then that, funnily enough, he has stolen; I said that I was not a Eurosceptic, but a Government sceptic. That is a healthy thing to be on the Government Benches as well as on the Opposition Benches.
	The problem with a lot of these debates is that people make arguments for parliamentary democracy at the highest level—the right hon. Gentleman made a good speech about that—while also saying that we should abandon it and let people have a referendum run by the tabloid press and certain prejudiced people who have such power in this land because of their ownership of multimedia. Such people would distort anything and take things away from parliamentary democracy, which is why I am pleased that we have had so many days of debate on the treaty.
	Hon. Members keep coming back to simplified speeches that they can doubtless make to their constituents, but I ask them to read the consolidated treaty, a copy of which I have here. It shows how the treaty on the functioning of the European Union will work. If they did that, they would not be opposed to allowing clause 3 to stand part of the Bill.
	I commend the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for his thoughtful amendment. I also commend some of the speeches made about it. We heard discussions about how the Government should bring to the Floor of the House a procedure that would give confidence that Parliament would be engaged in deciding not only whether the right terminology is being used—for example, ensuring that "EC" becomes "EU"—but whether a power should be given away by an opt-in or a decision to opt out. I have put that matter again and again to my Front-Bench team from these Benches and in my Committee's report, and the point has been echoed by contributions by members of the Public Administration Committee. I hope that before the Government finish this procedure they will lay before us clear regulations that we can approve.
	Let us consider the origin of much of clause 3. Paragraph 42 of the European Scrutiny Committee's 35th report of Session 2006-07 states:
	"The White Paper...refers to...'simplified treaty revision'".
	It also mentioned a simplified revision procedure, which should be the substance of our concern. We detailed how the original
	"articles IV-444 and 445 of the Constitutional Treaty"
	provided for that "simplified revision procedure". We called it a constitutional treaty, but it was the treaty for a constitution.
	The Committee went on to say:
	"The simplified revision procedure would allow a change from unanimity to QMV (except in relation to decisions with military implications or in the area of defence)."
	I must point that out to hon. Members who were worried about defence. Neither the treaty for a constitution nor this treaty intended to hand over defence to anything other than a unanimity procedure; there was no intention to go to QMV, and that position remains firm.
	I found it strange that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke about defence, because I had expected him to discuss institutions. The Chair was open to letting him speak. He argued, incorrectly—I tried to intervene on him, but he would not let me—that defence was going to be compromised by this treaty.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Michael Connarty: I shall give way when I have put some specific quotes on to the record. The Committee's report stated:
	"The same simplified procedure may be used to amend all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union".
	Our concern was that there was no intention to have an IGC to do that, so it would just be done by arrangements with Governments. We said that we were
	"concerned that these provisions could allow substantial changes to be made without convening an IGC and so lead to even less transparency in the way the EU is governed, and less accountability of governments to their national parliaments. We ask the Government to outline what safeguards they would put in place to prevent this further erosion of transparency and accountability."
	As a result of that conclusion and our interrogating the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, they secured a series of agreements in the protocols on how this Government, and perhaps the Polish and Irish Governments, would have the right to opt-in after a matter was transposed and a clear procedure whereby if we did not like an amendment to something that had been agreed to—in other words, when we had already opted in—we would have the right to opt out or opt in to that amendment.
	There were consequences to that. There could have been financial penalties, because the countries that remained in the agreement could have decided that any costs incurred in pursuing an amendment that they had agreed should fall on the UK. We were assured by the Foreign Secretary and his officials that they could never see such a measure being enacted, but the European Scrutiny Committee was concerned that the decision to impose such penalties would be taken by qualified majority voting of the remaining countries, without the UK being allowed to participate. In other words, it would be a court at which we could not make our case.
	We summed up the situation as the law of unintended consequences. The Foreign Secretary—and his officials, whom I met separately—argued strongly that we had worked out the deal, that the amendments were to our advantage and that they would lay out a proper timetable for opting in and out. I have asked the Minister about the matter several times in the House. I know that he is burdened down with dealing with these debates, but I hope that someone in the Foreign Office is working on a set of procedures that show how the provisions will be enacted. If that does not happen, we will be taking a leap in the dark, although I believe that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

Mark Francois: I shall not praise the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, as I have on previous occasions, because I do not want to get him in trouble with his own party. He has touched on an extremely important point, and it shows that his Committee is doing exactly its job of holding the Government to account on points of detail. He has pressed the Minister on the important point of whether we might be fined and I hope that he will give us a definitive answer when he replies to the debate, because the question is fundamental.

Michael Connarty: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know that, in trying to help me, he is trying to help the Committee. He is probably not helping me, but he might be helping some Members who do not believe such questions should be asked. I do not expect the Minister to give us a definitive answer this evening, but as I said in a debate last week, I hope that the Government are giving the matter serious thought and will give us a clearly defined answer in regulations. They must give Members on both sides of the House the confidence that in the next five years, every time an opt-in is considered that will change a relationship set out in the agreement, it will be brought to the Floor of the House.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is very generous. In my defence, the reason I did not give way to him on the previous occasion was that I was closing my remarks and we were short of time. We have more time this evening.
	I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the European Defence Agency has its statute established by qualified majority voting. That statute empowers its steering board to vote by qualified majority voting. Furthermore, the Council, when establishing permanent structured co-operation, votes by qualified majority voting and can remove a reluctant member of the permanent structured co-operation in that way. My submission is simple: that the qualified majority voting arrangements in defence will inevitably put pressure on member states to agree with things with which they might otherwise not agree. That is an erosion of the veto on EU defence policy.

Michael Connarty: It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman picked that example; we have looked at it in great detail, but I am sure that he and all other hon. Members will agree that it has nothing at all to do with the treaty. That agreement already exists under the current treaties: the European Defence Agency is up and running, and we regularly receive reports from it. My understanding—I think that this was what I would have said in the intervention on the hon. Gentleman—is that only where a group of countries decide to act together and one member wishes to leave that arrangement because it finds it too burdensome can the agency decide by qualified majority voting to let that country leave. It is not a matter of expelling someone. I am very clear about this fact; we have studied it in some detail. When a country wishes to leave, it can be given permission to leave by qualified majority voting. That is an arrangement not for all 27 countries, but only for those countries that have already agreed to act together on specific defence-related policies.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Michael Connarty: I am not going to get into a dialogue.

James Clappison: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in which it found that the treaty contains five significant changes in defence, including permanent structured co-operation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has just referred? The Select Committee found that there was a change.

Michael Connarty: I think that the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that any such amendment should be made by primary legislation.
	Later, we shall debate a number of passerelles—a procedure whereby a decision can be taken by unanimity to adopt qualified majority voting—but that is not what we are talking about at the moment; we are talking about clause 3, which is not a matter of passerelles.

Philip Davies: I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the point that he made earlier. I could not quite follow what he was saying, but I seemed to agree with him that clause 3 involved taking a leap in the dark—I think that he used that phrase—and that he hoped that the Minister would return with some clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he will vote for clause 3 without that clarification, even though he accepts that we are taking a leap in the dark?

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman did not follow what I was saying. I was referring to matters where qualified majority voting would result if we opted into any provision using the normal Community method, which is qualified majority voting, or when an amendment is made to something that we have already agreed to. In that case, we have the option to opt in or opt out. I have already said several times that those procedures should be explained quite clearly, so that people know how we as the Parliament, rather than the Government, will be involved in making the decisions.
	My concern is not so much that such things will be done by statutory instrument—at least that would be something—but that they will be done in Council and all we will get is a report of the deed when it is done, which is often the case at the moment. That is what I am talking about. I do not find the change in terminology in the least bit offensive or difficult; it is a consequence of signing up for the treaty. I believe that the treaty is good for the UK and the people whom I represent, and even the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said that this minor consequence is not the most important thing, but it raises the question of procedures—something that the right hon. Member for Wells did very well—and that is what I am concerned about.

Bernard Jenkin: I must first take issue with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) about the European Defence Agency. He is correct that no member state can be thrown out of the agency, but there is no need to throw out a single member state, because the agency will operate on the basis of qualified majority voting. If there are dissenting voices that represent less than a qualified minority, their views can be disregarded and overridden. That creates a very large thick end of a thickening wedge in European defence. The hon. Gentleman says that the European Defence Agency is not a new institution, but it is now enshrined in the new treaty as an institution of the European Community. The high representative for foreign affairs has a leading role in the agency, according to the statute. Of course, the high representative for foreign affairs is also a member of the European Commission, thus attacking the agency's intergovernmental nature once again.
	The European Commission has long had an ambition to create a single market in defence goods, and fundamental to clause 3 is the elimination of the obvious distinction between those matters that exist under the treaty of European Union and those that exist under the treaty establishing the European Communities. The idea that that is a technical change, as the Minister put it, is likely to be misleading—although perhaps not deliberately misleading—to those who wonder how the treaties will affect the lives of citizens in the member states.
	I remind the House of what paragraph 2(b) of article 1 of the new treaty says:
	"The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union"—
	that is the new name of the treaty establishing the European Community—
	"(hereinafter referred to as "the Treaties"). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value."
	That was simply not the case under the previous arrangements. We will now rely on the provisions of the treaty in order to separate matters that were traditionally covered by the treaty establishing the European Community—including the single market, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy—from matters such as the common foreign, security and defence policy. Hon. Members will be surprised to hear that the provisions of the treaty are subject only to the interpretation of the European Court of Justice.

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend and I have debated such issues together many times, so he will recall that the key to the European Union's dynamic force lies in the Court, because the Court takes control of elements and, through judicial activism, reinterprets issues and always moves things on in a single direction.

Bernard Jenkin: That is exactly right. I remember debating those matters with my right hon. Friend many years ago when the House debated the treaty on European Union, as it then was. The point is that it is impossible to foretell what matters will come before the Court. It is impossible to forecast what issues and disputes will arise on a subject as massively complex and broad as the treaties. We now rely entirely on short exclusions that are written into the treaties. Let me elaborate on that point. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, exhorted us to read the treaties, so let me say that the exclusion concerned is in article 275 of the consolidated texts. I must say that I find the business of using the treaty of Lisbon numbering very confusing, because when people read this debate once the treaty is in force, if they open the consolidated texts they will not be able to marry up the debate that took place in the House with the treaty that is in force. I hope the House will forgive me if on this occasion I use the numbering as it would be if the treaty were ratified.

Peter Lilley: The constitution.

Bernard Jenkin: Yes, I hear my right hon. Friend saying that the treaty is near to being the constitution. It is worth pointing out that the abolition of the term "European Community", and its replacement with "European Union" throughout the treaties, was the main innovation in the constitution. That underlines one of the European Scrutiny Committee's fundamental conclusions, which is that we are talking about a distinction that amounts to no substantive difference.
	Article 275 says:
	"The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions."
	The problem is that the treaty does not define "common foreign and security policy". The only definition is included in the provisions on foreign and security policy.
	The treaty continues:
	"However, the Court shall have jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 of the Treaty on European Union and to rule on proceedings, brought in accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of this Treaty."
	If hon. Members have become confused it is understandable, because the matter is complex. Article 40 of the treaty on European Union—the European Scrutiny Committee Chairman told us to read the treaty, and I am enjoying reading it—states:
	"The implementation of the common foreign and security policy shall not affect the application of the procedures and the extent of the powers of the institutions laid down by the Treaties for the exercise of the Union competences referred to in Articles 3 to 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."
	Notwithstanding the exclusion of the European Court of Justice from common foreign and security policy, anything that is included in the treaty on the function of the European Union that overlaps with common foreign and security policy is included in the jurisdiction of the Court. That includes matters such as trade, aid and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has said from a sedentary position, competition.
	Article 270 on the European Court of Justice refers to the terms and conditions of employees of the European Union, and the boundaries will get blurred. Members of the External Action Service of the European Union will presumably be employees of the European Union, so that aspect of foreign policy will inevitably be tangled up with the European Court of Justice—for example, there could be an international dispute that turns on the employment conditions of an employee of the European Union in the form of the External Action Service. That is one area in which blurring is likely to take place.
	Let us remember how the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States developed on matters such as tax, trade and agriculture. The Supreme Court of the United States has no explicit powers to regulate tax. There is no federal power in the United States constitution that grants taxation powers to the Federal Government, and such powers were obtained by extrapolating the right to regulate trade between the states of the United States of America. On agricultural quantities, for example, there is no federal power in the United States constitution to regulate quantitative restrictions within a state of the United States of America. However, because a court has argued that what is produced in one state affects trade in another, trade provisions have been used to get into another area of the law, which is how the United States became the modern federation that it is today.
	The exclusions in these treaties have been expressly drafted to prevent such leakage of jurisdiction upwards to the federal institutions of the European Union, but I fear that it will be difficult to prevent that. Returning to the European Defence Agency, it is clear that many supporters of the EDA dream of creating a single market for defence manufacturers in the European Union. There are specific exclusions that exclude defence from the single market in the existing treaties, which will be carried forward into the new treaties. However, let us face it: what constitutes a defence good as opposed to an ordinary civil good? Let me give an example.
	We export Land Rovers throughout the world, and a Land Rover can be a civilian or military vehicle. Many of the parts used for the civilian versions are also used for the military versions. One of the exclusions from the European Court of Justice is trade. I always thought that the application of sanctions against a third country was an act of foreign policy, but the European Union does not count it as such—the application of sanctions is a trade matter, which falls under qualified majority voting and is included in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and enforceable by the Court.
	Let us suppose that we had a dispute with our European partners about a major defence contract and they wanted to stop us having an arrangement with a third country. Given the provisions that international sanctions be subject to qualified majority voting, that issue could be included. Civilian parts of the order could be included, even if they were included as military hardware.
	I should like to ask the Minister a question, if he will give me his attention. When there are disputes about the treaties, they are routinely referred to the European Court of Justice for resolution except in so far as they are excluded. Yet it is illegal to refer any dispute about the treaties to any body outside the European Union. By rule of the treaties, there are matters of international law that cannot be referred to the European Court of Justice, nor to any other international jurisdiction.
	How would such a dispute be resolved? In the end, it is inconceivable that a dispute within the EU about the treaties would not eventually and somehow be resolved by the European Court of Justice. The Court might well exclude itself from jurisdiction, but we would be relying on that self-exclusion. In the boundary areas in which foreign and defence policy overlaps with policy on trade, aid or other issues included in the existing treaty establishing the European Community, it is easy to see how the jurisdiction of the Court could be incrementally enlarged, case by case, as we have seen it operate year after year.
	Finally, I wish to return to the question of permanent structured co-operation, given that I was provoked by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. Qualified majority voting also erodes the intergovernmental character of what has traditionally been dealt with under the treaty on European Union. Permanent structured co-operation is created by a qualified majority vote of the European Council. A member state can be removed from the permanent structured co-operation under article 28E, paragraph 4—I am going back to the other numbering, which shows how confusing it is. The article states:
	"If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, the Council may adopt a decision suspending the participation of the Member State concerned."
	It goes on to say that such a decision will be taken by qualified majority voting.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that these voluntary arrangements from which people wish to withdraw may not include all countries of the 27 but those that wish to become involved in such arrangements, and that if some of them then wish to withdraw from those arrangements because they do not have sufficient capacity to meet the required criteria, that is when the provision that he mentioned comes into action? This is not a question of 27 members agreeing to do something together or then being compelled to remain bound by such an agreement or being expelled if they fail to meet the necessary criteria—it is a system to allow people to withdraw from an arrangement when they do not have the support of their Parliament or Government or the resources to participate in the arrangement they had previously agreed. No one can be forced by qualified majority voting to take part in any of the actions that he is outlining.

Bernard Jenkin: The point is that a member state that chooses to exclude itself from the permanent structured co-operation or is excluded because it fails to satisfy the criteria to the satisfaction of other members ceases to have a veto— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk is interrupting me—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I could say at this juncture that we are discussing clause 3 stand part; it might be useful if I reminded the hon. Gentleman of that.

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful for your clarification, Sir Michael.
	In clause 3, the distinction between the European Community and the European Union is verbally destroyed, so the natural distinction that the Court, or any institution of the European Union, would make between the European Community and the European Union no longer exists, as they become the same organisation.

James Clappison: In mitigation towards the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, will my hon. Friend join me in understanding the frustration clearly felt by the hon. Gentleman and by other hon. Members about the fact that in debating this clause, which is just about names, we are trying to have the detailed scrutiny of defence matters that we have been prevented from having in relation to the rest of the Bill? We feel frustrated because we are not doing our duty.

Bernard Jenkin: I absolutely agree. I am fumbling in my treaties to try to find the relevant protocol relating to this very important matter.

Iain Duncan Smith: While my hon. Friend is busy with his documents, does he agree that we have been through this stuff many times over? I would reiterate this point to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. The moment that the distinction between the two institutions was broken and the courts were therefore brought in on this, we could not, as politicians, assume anything about the future direction. The point that my hon. Friend is making so well is that now, when the Government say, "Trust us", they have no idea how the courts will rule when it comes to a clash over on which side of the argument they should fall.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend is exactly right.
	The conditions for taking part in structural co-operations are very onerous. Article 2 of the protocol says that to achieve the objectives laid down, participating member states shall undertake to
	"bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification of their military needs, by pooling and, where appropriate, specialising their defence means and capabilities"
	and to
	"take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability of their forces, in particular by identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces".
	If a member state in the permanent structured co-operation does not want to go along with some European policy that is being decided by the European Defence Agency on qualified majority voting, or has decided to exclude itself from a set of decisions that result in the European Union making it its policy to harmonise certain defence policies, it loses the veto, because unless it goes along with that policy, it is not complying with the terms of the permanent structured co-operation and can be excluded from it anyway.

Iain Duncan Smith: As my hon. Friend said previously, what this House constantly fails to realise, because it has never been the nature of the way in which law is made in this country, is that the European Court of Justice constantly refers back to the protocol. That gives it its sense of direction when a clash occurs, and it will always find its way to that direction. It may temporarily halt, but it will always find that direction. That is why the momentum of the European Union has been guaranteed by the Court of Justice. Those Europeans who legislate say that the protocols are critical. We think that they are general; they say that they provide the sense of direction, and they are right.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend, again, is exactly right.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman say which part of defence policy he believes that the Court has jurisdiction over?

Bernard Jenkin: I have explained how the Court of Justice already has jurisdiction over sanctions policy. It already has jurisdiction over the single market, and it—

Edward Davey: indicated dissent.

Bernard Jenkin: I am going to explain it to the hon. Gentleman. The European Court of Justice has the responsibility to adjudicate on what is purely a single market matter, and what is military. Those boundaries will be adjudicated by the Court of Justice and it is only a matter of time before the Court finds the means to regulate what the Commission has long wanted to be able to regulate: the edges of the defence market. I have explained how the protocol also creates a political imperative on member states participating in a permanent structure of co-operation to harmonise their defence policies for fear of being compulsorily excluded from the permanent structured co-operation. These are arrangements—

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am going to make a simple, last point—

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: Okay, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as I have not given way to him before.

Mark Hendrick: We may have our differences about the virtues of the European Court of Justice, and I think that the example the hon. Gentleman gives about trade policy—whether something is a civil or defence issue—is quite obscure and tenuous, but leaving that aside, does he accept that not all 27 member states have to be members of the European Defence Agency? Those who join the agency do so because they wish to, and not everyone is obliged to take part. If a member state wishes to leave, or other member states think that that state is not playing ball on the objectives, why should it have a veto?

Bernard Jenkin: If a member state chooses not to participate in the defence agency or in the permanent structured co-operation, it is nevertheless bound by the policy decisions of those two bodies, which become the policy of the Union. Under article 11, that state is bound to support the policies of the Union actively and unreservedly in that area. That amounts to the loss of the veto.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman want another go? I have flattened him once.

Mark Hendrick: It would be significant if all 27 member states were members of the European Defence Agency, which will not be the case, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Secondly, the fact is that if other member states in the defence agency do not agree, a member state can withdraw or be thrown out. Whether or not that member state has a veto in an organisation that does not have to have 27 members is neither here nor there.

Bernard Jenkin: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read article 11, which says—I know it off by heart—that member states shall refrain from any action that is likely to disrupt the policies of the European Union. If the policy of the European Union is decided by six or eight members, that is its policy. Those self-excluded or compulsorily excluded members have no control—

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Philip Davies: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: Do I really need to give way to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) again? [Hon. Members: "No."] I give way to my hon. Friend.

Philip Davies: Clause 3 concerns changes of terminology. Is it not another example of how the European Union has run rings round this country time after time? It tries to pretend that these changes in terminology mean nothing, and that they are just technical changes, and Ministers swallow it every time. But it knows why the changes are so important, which is why it insists that such changes are in these treaties, and it uses them in the way referred to by my hon. Friend.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we know that there is a clear agenda behind the changes. Those who created the European constitution, which the Government admitted represented a fundamental change in our relationship with our European partners, have designed this treaty so that it will have virtually the same effect as the constitution, but under the disguise of an intergovernmental arrangement.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but what I have just said is pretty much what his Committee told the House.

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has tried to make the same point in several speeches. He tries to delude those outside that people must be involved in the permanent structured co-operation, that they can expelled from it but that somehow they have no control over it. Article 1 of the protocol from which the hon. Gentleman quoted selectively states:
	"The permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 42(6) of the Treaty on European Union shall be open to any Member State which undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to:"
	It then lists the provisions. It reads "shall be open to", not "shall be compelled to be part of". Will the hon. Gentleman please desist from claiming that people must join the organisation, that they can be thrown out of it and that, somehow, they have lost all control? The protocol makes it clear that permanent structured co-operation will not contradict any country's priorities in defence policy or undermine people's right to act through NATO for their common defence. It cannot be described as compulsory. If the hon. Gentleman puts that on record now, I shall let him fantasise as much as he likes thereafter.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is guilty of a partial reading of the treaty. The permanent structured co-operation in article 1 of the protocol to which he refers is governed by another article under title V. I shall not repeat it, but permanent structured co-operation is created by a qualified majority vote of the Council. Moreover, such a vote can remove a member that no longer satisfies the criteria that the protocol lays down. The protocol's obligations, which I read out earlier, are onerous.

Michael Connarty: Are they voluntary?

Bernard Jenkin: No, they are not voluntary.  [Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) knows how to make an intervention if he wishes to do so.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is no obligation to be part of a permanent structured co-operation, but that is not the question. The European Union's policy will be decided by those in the permanent structured co-operation. A member state that is in the permanent structured co-operation can participate in the discussion but be outvoted, and a member state that is not in it has no say in what becomes the European Union's policy.

Michael Connarty: If a member state does not want to be part of that co-operation and any agreement of the European Union to take part in an action outwith it, why should that member state be bothered? In that case, the member state has decided not to commit troops or be involved.

Bernard Jenkin: I have never claimed that the article would be a means of deploying troops from a member state that is not in the permanent structured co-operation. I have never said that. However, let us suppose that it became the policy of a permanent structured co-operation to send a new force to a new theatre of war. Let us suppose that a member state in the permanent structured co-operation did wish to do that. The member state either has a veto over the operation or, if it had already been excluded for other reasons, no say over the European Union's making a military deployment in its name. What could be clearer than that? Why do the arrangements exist if they are not to enable the EU to make more decisions without single member states being able to obstruct them with their vetoes? That is the reason for including the protocol.

Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be reasonable for, for example, Luxembourg to be a member of the European Defence Agency and have the power to veto the wishes of many other member states that are members of that agency?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We should be discussing clause 3 stand part, not the detail into which we are now going.

Bernard Jenkin: I will certainly respect your injunction, Mrs. Heal, but your injunction underlines how lamentably short is the time that we have been given to discuss the defence aspects of the treaty. Indeed, the defence amendments were never discussed at all. We have relied on your good offices and those of your colleagues to be allowed to discuss such matters at all, but we have never had proper time to do so.
	The fact is that clause 3 is about establishing a clear direction of travel for the European Union. It is not about decentralising or giving more powers to member states; it is about taking powers away from member states and establishing institutions that will continue to remove policy discretion from member states and give it to the institutions of the European Union. That is why I oppose clause 3.

Roger Gale: I came into the Chamber earlier—it seems like quite a long time ago now—to make a brief contribution based on my personal experience in the House, which I believe is directly relevant to clause 3, curious though that may seem. Before that, however—and before you took the Chair, Mrs. Heal—the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) threw down the gauntlet to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), which I would like briefly to pick up.
	The hon. Gentleman held aloft the treaty, asked, "Have you read this?" and challenged us to say which of the items in it our constituents had written to us about. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to go through the entire litany, but back in the autumn I sent out 35,000 cards to my constituents, 3,500 of which were returned, which by my miserable maths makes 10 per cent., which is about 10 times more than we usually receive when we send things without a reply paid envelope. In addition, I collected 3,500 signatures for a petition calling for a referendum on the constitution, which is what the treaty is. Those people writing to me made their views very clear. They were concerned about defence, about European foreign policy, about an extension of presidential powers and, most particularly, about the loss of the veto in a whole raft of areas.
	The hon. Gentleman held up the document and asked, "Have you read this?" As you will remember, Mrs. Heal, before the summer recess we did not have access to even the draft treaty in English, so I—poor, sad soul that I am—got a copy in French and tried to read it. It was, dare I say, pretty obscure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that the document was "opaque". I would say that it is obscure. When the draft treaty came out in English, I heaved a sigh of relief and grabbed it, giving up on my miserable French, only to discover that it was just as obscure in English as it was in French—to me, at least.
	One thing shines through clause 3, however. You have sat in the Chair on numerous Committees considering various pieces of legislation, Mrs. Heal, as have I. In your years in the House, you will have experienced, as I have experienced, under—I have to say with shame—successive Governments, not just this one, a weakening of parliamentary draftsmanship. It has reached the point where increasingly lazy draftsmen write secondary powers into Bills saying that the Minister will have the right to do this or that thing by secondary legislation. There is a whole raft of potential secondary legislation that is not contained in very many of the Bills that we pass through the House. I see clause 3 as the European version of that writ large.
	Clause 3 is not about giving nation states a right to do as they see fit; it is about a right of the European Union to tell us in Parliament what we will do and enact by secondary legislation. If I am right—the Minister will no doubt clarify this when he winds up, but I believe that I am—we have failed to grasp one salient fact, as was mentioned earlier. In these Houses of Parliament, the law is the last resort and Parliament is sovereign. In many European jurisdictions, the legislature is bound up with the legal process—they are part and parcel of the same thing. If clause 3 goes through, we will find the European Court dictating to European legislators what we as United Kingdom legislators will then have to push through as secondary legislation. We shall find that we have no say over what we are enacting in many areas that are now the responsibility of this House.
	With great respect to my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Chingford and Woodford Green, who have said otherwise, clause 3 is not unimportant. It is not the most important clause in the Bill, but it is not unimportant. It is tantamount to a Trojan horse. If it goes through, inside it and on the back of it will come whole rafts of changes that we shall have no power to resist. That is why it must not, cannot and should not stand part of the Bill.

James Clappison: I shall oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. We have had more chance to debate this matter than many other aspects of the Bill but, even so, the clause is tainted by the way in which the Government have sought to manipulate terminology or nomenclature, all the way through the process to try to disguise what is taking place. The way in which we describe something is important.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), speaking for the Liberal Democrats—we know that they have their problems at the moment—referred to the collapse of the pillars as being only a partial collapse. I think that that was in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who used to be a fireman in his previous career. I do not know what a householder would have said to him if, attending a call and finding that the roof had blown off, he had said to that householder, "Never mind. You've only had a partial collapse. Your garden shed is still standing."
	The Liberal Democrats have to face up to the seriousness of what is taking place here. I know that the hon. Gentleman has had his problems on this matter, but he has to face up to the fact that major changes in foreign policy have taken place and that that pillar has been completely collapsed. There is qualified majority voting on foreign policy and, increasingly, incrementally, we are going to have a European Union-determined foreign policy.
	The same will apply to justice and home affairs. What the hon. Gentleman said about the opt-in arrangements was true, but we also heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) about all the problems surrounding the opt-in provisions on home affairs, and about the penalty clauses that this country will face if we seek to exercise those opt-in proposals. I am not even sure that it is not the Liberal Democrats' policy to sign up wholesale to the so-called area of freedom, justice and security without an opt-in. They are not even clear on that.
	These are important matters. The problem for the Government is that this process has been tainted by the way in which they have conducted the negotiations, by the lack of opportunity that we had to scrutinise the proposals before the intergovernmental conference mandate was agreed, and by the way in which that negotiation was carried out by the former Prime Minister, as virtually his last act in office. Thereafter, we were saddled with the intergovernmental conference mandate, which was enacted almost wholesale at the intergovernmental conference in November, save for the provisions that were disadvantageous to the United Kingdom, which gave us penalty clauses in respect of the opt-in. That was a real triumph of negotiation for the Government.
	As I said earlier, what really astounds me in all this is the lack of transparency that taints this clause. I can do no better than to quote from the agreed conclusions of the European Scrutiny Committee—which is chaired by the hon. Gentleman—on the way in which the process had been tainted. It states in, I think, its most recent report, the third one of this Session, that
	"we reiterate our earlier comment that the process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached."
	Our suspicions on this matter go back to before last June, because we know that a plan was set out for the Government in the questionnaire that came from the German presidency, when exactly the course that we have seen being followed was being suggested to the Government, even though they denied having received the questionnaire. The questionnaire talked about using terminology and presentational change to disguise the fact that the former constitution was being enacted. It even went so far as to ask:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States concerning possible improvements/clarifications on issues related to new challenges facing the EU, for instance in the fields of energy/climate change or illegal immigration?"
	Was it a coincidence, Mrs. Heal, that we spent a whole day debating the subject of climate change, which is a very important subject in itself, when there was not even a proposal about climate change in the original constitution? We find that this was put forward by the German presidency as a way of tarting up the constitution to make it more acceptable to public opinion, disguising what was really going on. The process was tainted, as I said, from beginning to end and it is a disgrace to the House in every conceivable way, as we have had no proper scrutiny on matters of such substantial importance. We cannot allow any part of this to go unchallenged, because the Government simply do not deserve our trust.

Mark Francois: We heard quite a number of contributions from my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I hope that they will forgive me if, for the sake of time, I do not comment on every speech. I must say that I was particularly struck by the passionate—that is the appropriate word—contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). He spoke very forcefully on these matters and I see the Minister nodding in agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) also spoke passionately about the threat posed by clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was not to be outdone by the fact that the defence amendments had not been debated. In my view, he kept just on the right side of order, Mrs. Heal, introducing a number of concerns through that methodology. We have thus heard quite a few speeches explaining why clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill.
	At the risk of really dropping him in it, I must also refer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. The reason for doing so is that he asked a very important question of the Minister, when he pressed him on whether we could be fined under the treaty in certain circumstances. In a sense, he gave the Minister an excuse for not answering that question tonight, because he said that it was a complicated matter that officials were looking into, so it might not be possible to produce an immediate answer. I hope that, for the sake of the hon. Gentleman's career, the Government Whip took notice of that point. However, the Government have had months to prepare for debates on that subject. They have been negotiating through the European Convention for years, so they should by now be able to tell us definitively whether or not we could be fined and under what circumstances a fine would apply. I press the Minister to answer that question tonight, because we are not prepared to accept the get-out that he was given by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. We would like to have that question, so helpfully raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, answered. With that, I hope that I have not completely wrecked the hon. Gentleman's further advancement!
	If I may say so, Mrs. Heal, the Government's argument on clause 3 basically boiled down to "Trust us". The provisions are technical and tidying, we were told, so there is nothing to worry about. In a sense, that has been the Government's argument all the way through our debate on the treaty—that it is a tidying and amending treaty, in respect of which there is really nothing to worry about. Well, there are three reasons for not taking their word for it.
	First, the Government said, "Trust us, and you can have a referendum", but they broke that commitment. Secondly, they said that the House of Commons could have 20 days to debate the provisions in detail, but they broke that commitment. Thirdly, they promised line-by-line scrutiny of the treaty, but they broke that commitment, too. When we debated climate change, we spent the best part of a day on it, yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, only six words in the treaty related to that subject and no new powers whatever were proposed that were not already provided for in the existing treaty base. It is a sign of how bad the Government's argument was that day that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who moved the Government's motion, attempted to argue that—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that we are supposed to be debating clause 3 stand part, rather than matters that were not debated in full earlier.

Mark Francois: You are absolutely right, Mrs. Heal. My point was about clause 3 and scrutiny, and I was simply about to say that the argument of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was that an amendment proposed by Conservative Front Benchers deleted the words from the treaty, when in fact it did not. That amendment was proposed by a Back Bencher and we did not support it. Not only did the Government fail to scrutinise the Bill; they did not even scrutinise the Order Paper properly, which is even more embarrassing. Therefore, I have given three reasons that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. There is another.
	Earlier, we tabled amendments that would have made the clause less dangerous. In particular, amendment No. 39, ably introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), would have made all the changes subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. Had the Government been prepared to accept that amendment, we would have had greater reassurance about how clause 3 would have worked in practice. As they resisted that amendment, and the related amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and did not allow the House to improve the clause, the Opposition are not prepared to trust the Government on the basis of their record to date. We continue to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.

Jim Murphy: Some time ago, when I moved that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill, I had not expected to have the opportunity and privilege to respond to such a wide-ranging debate. Some parts of the debate have referred to clause 3 more obviously than others, but all have, of course, been in order, as you, Mrs. Heal, and Sir Michael have guided.
	We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). All that I would say to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk does not need the hon. Gentleman to get him into trouble; he is more than capable, as he is well aware, of doing it of his own accord, and sometimes he does it intentionally. I shall try to make relatively short responses, as I have already spoken on clause 3, and am mindful of your strictures to remain in order, Mrs. Heal.
	The right hon. Member for Chingford and Wood Green—[Hon. Members: "Woodford."] I am sorry. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford—[Hon. Members: "Green."] I am sorry. The right hon. Member for Chingford was generous—I am not sure that he wishes to be so now—in his observations of the tone that I have tried to adopt for the debate. Although we continue to disagree about the substance, it is important that the debate is conducted in a certain tone, and I have sought to do that. By all accounts, from both sides of the House, he made a remarkably impassioned speech in respect of the role of opposition, particularly with regard to the European Union. I am used to his tough tackling on the football pitch, to which he alluded, but he has been as passionate in this evening's debate as he is a tough tackler on the football field.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk reflected on pillar collapses in justice and home affairs issues. I will seek to stay within the terms of the perhaps more narrowly defined clause 3, Mrs. Heal. He is right to assert, however, that our negotiated position has ensured the right to opt in or out on any amending measure, Schengen-building measures and transitional measures. Whenever there is a transition from former pillar three to the new pillar one Community method, in the new democratic architecture, we have a chance to opt in on each proposal. At the end of the five-year transitionary period, we have the right to opt out en bloc, en masse, and can then apply to opt back in to each and every new measure.
	My hon. Friend is right that if our decision had financial consequences, for example, if there were a common IT system to support some of the mechanisms currently in pillar three, or if UK staff were deployed in the management and support of such a mechanism, it would be appropriate for us to meet the costs of making those staff redundant and returning them to the UK if they were based elsewhere, geographically, in the EU. That is the type of issue that is being discussed, but we cannot take a view on the structure of the arrangement until we have taken a view on each and every proposal. However, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I have given to him before: we will take a view on the financial consequences in detail as we examine the details of each individual measure.

Mark Francois: Was not the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that the decision on the amount of any such payment could be made at a meeting from which the United Kingdom was excluded?

Jim Murphy: If we have left the governance of an area of justice and home affairs, we have left it, and when decisions about costs are made we will no longer be part of the process. I have made that clear before, and I make it clear again now.
	As for common foreign and security policy and defence policy, I do not wish to go into all the detail, but the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that
	"the simplification of the nomenclature for Common Foreign and Security Policy decisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty represents an improvement on the current situation."
	Permanent structured co-operation is clearly in the United Kingdom's interest, and is sensitive to and supportive of NATO's capacity and ambitions within the European Union. We are strongly in favour of it.
	Article 275 makes absolutely clear the definitions relating to common foreign and security policy and the jurisdiction of the courts. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked about the complication presented by the consolidated treaty texts. The fact is that they were produced after a request from the European Union Committee in the House of Lords. Incidentally, a similar request was made at the time of the passing of the Maastricht Bill, and the Government of the day did no such thing. We thought that producing the texts was a way of informing the debate, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not find it as helpful as the Committee expected it to be.
	The decision on common foreign and security policy and permanent structured co-operation was a deliberate decision in line with United Kingdom objectives to make PSC easier to set up, easier for member states to join, and easier for them to be suspended from if they no longer fulfil the requirements.

Bernard Jenkin: Why did the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) oppose permanent structured co-operation when it was first proposed in 2003?

Jim Murphy: In the interim there was a period of discussion, negotiation and agreement, confirming the participation of a member state that subsequently wishes to participate in qualified majority voting among members of the Council that are already participating in permanent structured co-operation. That was made very clear.

Mark Francois: Is it now the Government's policy that if the Lisbon treaty is ratified, we should participate in permanent structured co-operation on defence? Yes or no?

Jim Murphy: We strongly support permanent structured co-operation, whose genesis lies in a United Kingdom-French initiative. We and the French have strongly supported it in the past because of its capacity to deliver in such places as the Congo. [Hon. Members: "Yes or no?"] I have made it very clear that we strongly support permanent structured co-operation. I cannot make it any clearer.
	The provisions in subsections (1) to (6) are also very clear. They establish a power to make purely technical changes. For example, the article numbers in the treaties will change when the Lisbon treaty comes into force. The co-decision procedure will be renamed the ordinary legislative procedure. There will be no change in substance in the United Kingdom as a consequence of clause 3, because, as subsection (4) makes clear, it concerns
	"changes in terminology or numbering arising out of the Treaty of Lisbon."

John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that the terminology is changing because there is a big further transfer of power to the EU? Is that not why the names and the way in which the clauses in the treaty are numbered are being changed? He should come clean with the British public, who want a vote on this issue, that he is giving power away.

Jim Murphy: That is just not the case at all. It is legitimate for the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the policies and the content of the Lisbon treaty. But to seek, as he does, to prevent Parliament in the future effectively from making terminological changes and changes in numbering arising from the Lisbon treaty is nothing short of ludicrous. I remind the House that we are speaking of the issues set out in the schedule. The terminological and numbering changes apply to regulations such as the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (England) Regulations 2004 and the Food (Peanuts from China) (Emergency Control) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. To suggest that changes in the terminology and numbering of such regulations necessary as a consequence of the introduction of the Lisbon treaty into law cannot be made is nothing short of ludicrous.
	These amendments are about frustrating the passage of the Bill and, as the hon. Member for Stone said earlier, about wrecking the Bill and preventing the Lisbon treaty from entering into force in the UK. I urge my hon. Friends to support clause 3 stand part.

Question put:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 326, Noes 148.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule agreed to.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Increase of powers of European Parliament

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to rise in support of clause 4. It does not so much
	"secure for the workers by hand or by brain",
	but it does secure increased powers for the European Parliament. Although that may be one and the same thing.  [ Laughter. ]
	Clause 4 fulfils the statutory requirement that any increases in the powers of the European Parliament must be approved by Act of Parliament. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this clause and to pay tribute to the work undertaken by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the close attention that he has paid to the issue over recent months.
	The European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which amended the original 1978 Act, requires that:
	"No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the European Parliament is to be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament".
	Clause 4 therefore meets the requirements of the 2002 Act.

John Redwood: Will the Minister remind the House how the powers are being strengthened?

Jim Murphy: The powers of the European Parliament are being strengthened in a positive way. There are 40 extensions to co-decision in the European Parliament, 30 of which apply to the UK. The other 10 will apply to the UK should we choose for them to do so. It is an important set of reforms that enshrines additional responsibilities on the European Parliament, although some of the debates in this House suggest a collective denial of the fact that European parliamentarians, including those from this nation, are elected by a democratic process. It is a step in the direction of improving the co-decision making of the European Parliament.
	It is right that we make provision in primary legislation recognising that the Lisbon Treaty increases the powers of the European Parliament. These changes are intended to strengthen the co-decision extensions. Experience suggests that co-decision leads to better legislation—the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulation, or REACH, is a good example. The co-decision powers will not be extended everywhere, and will not apply to key strategic policy areas—such as foreign and defence policy.
	Of course, some Conservative Members will oppose clause 4 and the extension of co-decision, but I am sure that in private, reflective moments they will recall that the principle was introduced by the Maastricht treaty, which made the European Parliament a true joint decision-making body for the first time. The Maastricht treaty introduced co-decision procedures in 15 separate articles, on issues such as the free movement of workers, services, internal market, education, public health, consumer protection and environmental policy. All those co-decision arrangements were introduced by the Maastricht treaty.
	Of course, the Lisbon treaty also caps the number of Members of the European Parliament at 751—down from 785 at present—and we welcome that smaller European Parliament as well. The European Parliament will elect the president of the Commission. Under new article 9d, the European Council will have to take account of the political complexion of the European Parliament when nominating a new Commission president, and MEPs will gain separate votes on the Commission president and on the college of Commissioners. Of course, that is not a new change in substance. The European Parliament's approval, which it delivers by a vote, is required now to appoint a new Commission. The new wording reflects the procedure followed during the appointment of the Barroso Commission in 2004.
	I sense from the mood of the House that hon. Members would like me to bring my comments to a conclusion— [ Interruption ]—but we still have nine minutes or so of the debate left before hon. Members perhaps seek to divide the House. I wish to give the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) the opportunity to respond. I think that it is fair for me to conclude my remarks, except to say that we believe that these extensions of co-decision to the democratically elected European Parliament are an important reform. These reforms are supported by political parties across the EU. They are supported by the Governments and the main Opposition parties in all 27 countries of the EU. It would be a shame if, in the UK alone, one major political party opposed these extensions as they are now proposed as a consequence of the Lisbon treaty. With those comments, I suggest that clause 4 remain part of the Bill.  [ Interruption. ]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Far too many private conversations are going on in the Chamber. The Committee must come to order.

Mark Francois: To mirror the Minister, I am equally delighted to propose that clause 4 should be deleted from the Bill. This clause 4 allows the increases in power given to the European Parliament that result from the treaty of Lisbon to be approved for the purposes of section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. Section 12 of that Act specifically states:
	"No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the European Parliament is to be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament."
	Before deciding whether to approve those clauses that increase the power of the European Parliament and in the seven minutes that I now have left, I want first to set out very briefly what powers the treaty gives to the European Parliament and, secondly, to make at least a few remarks on the Parliament itself and whether any improvement should be made to its functioning before it is granted these additional powers. It makes sense that, before increasing the powers of an institution, its ability to use those new powers should be analysed.
	What new powers will the European Parliament gain? Under the treaty, the power of the European Parliament will be increased by a move to co-decision with the Council in up to 40 new areas, including such controversial things as financial regulation, the laws on police co-operation, Eurojust's structure and operation, laws that relate to the implementation of the common agricultural policy and laws on the mutual recognition of criminal judgments, to name but a few.
	As the Committee will know, co-decision, which is sometimes known as the article 251 procedure, is a method of decision making between the European Council and Parliament that requires those two institutions to agree. If I had more time, I would develop that further, but suffice it to say that the Lisbon treaty represents a major transfer of power by extending co-decision in the direction of the European Parliament.

John Redwood: Did my hon. Friend notice that when I asked the Minister to name a single one of the 40 powers being transferred, he would not do so because there is not enough time to discuss those wide-ranging matters? I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning a few of them. Is it not a disgrace that we do not have time to talk about all the ones that we want to discuss?

Mark Francois: My right hon. Friend refers to the disgrace of the timing; we have five minutes left in which to debate clause 4, and we will have no time at all to debate clause 5. We will not even reach it because of the way in which the Government have rigged the debate on the treaty, time and again.
	I want to make some quick points about the need for better regulation on the part of the European Parliament. It is a problem that the European Parliament's structure and machinery are entirely dedicated to processing new legislation. Conservatives have long pressed for that Parliament to have instead mechanisms to monitor implementation of existing legislation, and to be able to propose the repeal of legislation, but those proposals have never been actively taken up by the Government. The European Parliament has a string of legislative committees, but no deregulation committee. I ask the Minister—when I have his attention—to consider that proposal in the context of tonight's debate, and any avenues that there might be for pressing it forward.
	There is one other matter that I have to mention: the farce of the two seats. The European Parliament spends £120 million annually commuting, for one week a month, to Strasbourg from Brussels. In 2006, more than 1 million people signed an online petition calling for an end to Parliament meetings in Strasbourg. Independent studies have calculated that the Strasbourg commute, as it is known, generates 20,000 tonnes of additional carbon dioxide emissions a year, yet far from acknowledging that the situation is clearly unsustainable, the European Parliament is currently negotiating to buy its buildings in Strasbourg from the French Government at a cost to the taxpayer of many hundreds of millions of euros.
	The decision to abandon Strasbourg can be taken only by EU Governments, but the UK Government have repeatedly refused to raise the issue proactively at European Union meetings. It cannot be right that the European Parliament continues to commute from Strasbourg to Brussels, and Brussels to Strasbourg, at a massive cost to the taxpayer, and a great cost to the environment. That should have been put right many years ago. We are debating the European Parliament now, but why have the Government remained so completely silent on the matter? They have been in power for 10 years; why have they not done something about it?
	Let me conclude by saying that it is a shame that more Members of the House will not be able to air their views on clause 4 and on the operation of the European Parliament. In fairness, that is not the fault of the European Parliament or the UK Parliament, but of the Government, who have rigged the debate so that such issues cannot adequately be discussed. They have timetabled debate on the treaty in a way that does not give us the line-by-line scrutiny that we were promised. In lieu of that, they should be held accountable by the British people, and should give them the referendum that they promised.

Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats totally support clause 4, mainly for a reason that the Conservatives have not touched on: increasing democracy in the European Union has to be a good thing. It seems quite extraordinary—
	 It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order s [28 January and this day].

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 324, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Chairman  then put the remaining Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again. —[Mr. Watts.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (3) (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the Report [26th February] from the Liaison Committee. —[Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Mr Jeremy Browne be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Tom Brake be added.— [Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

Post Office Closures (Oxfordshire)

Tony Baldry: I am glad to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of some 5,000 to 6,000 residents of Grimsbury in Banbury.
	The petition declares:
	That the Petitioners are extremely concerned about the threat to close Grimsbury sub-Post Office.
	Further declares that this Post Office is at the heart of this community. It offers a vital service to some of the most vulnerable people, including those on low wages, unemployed and the elderly.
	Further declares that the Government has persistently undermined our Post Office network over a number of years. Ministers have prevented the Post Office competing in the market by penalising them and instead playing to the High Street bank network, by seeking to withdraw the Post Office card account, and by preventing Post Offices selling TV Licences and other products to keep them competitive.
	Further declares that the Federation of Small Businesses has said that small business will also be adversely affected by Post Office closures and that the Federation of Sub-Post Masters and Mistresses, which presented the largest ever petition in support of Post Offices, has said the closures will devastate communities.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stop action which will lead to the immediate closures of Post Offices and urgently review funding for Post Offices and the services offered by them to enable Post Offices to continue to serve as a cornerstone of the community for individuals, business and the most vulnerable in society.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000129]

Support for Armed Services

Bob Spink: We have the bravest and the best servicemen and women in the world. We send them to fight for our country; some will not return, and others will return damaged by war, and they and their families fail to get the support that they desperately need, particularly medical and mental health support, or housing support. The Royal British Legion, which compiled this petition, is a highly respected British institution and no branch more so than the Canvey Island branch. Veterans are particularly concerned about those sent to serve their country in the most difficult places, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
	This is an important petition and I warmly congratulate and thank everyone who supported it. It calls on the Government to ensure that our troops and bereaved families are given more support at all levels.
	The Petition of the Canvey Island Royal British Legion and Castle Point and others,
	Declares that our Service men and women, past and present, are the bravest and best in the world and they deserve a better deal from the Government.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons implores the Government for the introduction of a decent Armed Services compensation scheme, decent health, welfare and support for ex-service men and women and a scheme to give greater support to the bereaved families of those service men and women who do not return.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000136]

WARM FRONT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Watts.]

Robert Flello: May I begin this debate by making it clear that the idea behind Warm Front is excellent, and that I have tried over a long period to get acceptable answers to the questions raised by my investigations so that I would not need to raise the matter in the House?
	Warm Front has the laudable objective of ensuring warm houses for the most in-need citizens of our country, backed by £2,700 of funding per household from this Labour Government, but something has gone very wrong. Over the course of the past year, the trickle of complaints coming to my desk has turned into a flood of complaints. People came forward with case after case where they were asked to contribute between £200 and almost £1,000 on top of the generous Government grants to have work done.
	Initially, I thought that my constituents were getting a complete heating system for the money. After all, I can go out in Stoke-on-Trent and engage a CORGI-registered plumber to fit a combi boiler and half a dozen radiators for about £3,000. But no, they were getting a boiler and, generally, just one radiator. I thought that perhaps the boiler concerned was a top-of-the-range combi boiler, but again, despite official correspondence telling me that the best materials are used, I found that the boilers in question are not those instant-hot-water types, but a bog-standard, heat-a-tank-of-water sort, and certainly not a high-specification one. Indeed, having finally got the breakdown of material and labour costs, I found that the cost of the materials was not that great—quite reasonable, in fact.
	I inquired, and was told that the workmanship was of the highest quality, and that extra work, such as the removal of any back boiler, must be done as part of the scheme. But that, too, was shown to be incorrect. It seems that the charge is £2,700 plus, whether back boilers are removed or not. The work is not consistently of the highest quality and, when the costs are looked at in detail, it seems that the contractors are charging about £1,000 for labour each day. I know that plumbers demand a high price—much higher than MPs—but £1,000 a day just for fitting? When I asked, I was told that the work was guaranteed, that there is a rigorous inspection regime and that if there were any problems, the work would be put right. Forgive me, but if I engage a local plumber and the work is not good enough, I expect them to come back and put it right, and I do not expect to pay extra to have that guarantee.
	Now might be a good moment to illustrate my point with an example. Mr. Degg, one of my constituents, contacted me, like so many others, about the work he had done. For the princely sum of £2,914.73, he did not have a combi boiler and six radiators fitted, which a local firm gave me a quote for, but a bog-standard condensing boiler and one radiator. The fitter turned up, saw how little work there was to do, ate his breakfast and disappeared for the morning, returning at lunch time. Mr. Degg knows a thing or two about plumbing and asked about the power flush that accounts for up to £500 of the costs of the job. The fitter laughed and said that it was not necessary. When the boiler and all the bits were fitted, my constituent complained about the poor brick work, where the flue went through the wall. That was not done satisfactorily and, in the end, Mr. Degg had to rebrick it himself. When the inspector came to examine the work—as I was told in official correspondence, the highest inspection regime pertains—and was told about the power flush and all the other problems, he said that all he could do was send an e-mail. There is not much value in that costly benefit. Sadly, Mr. Degg's experience is not a one-off.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. A constituent returned to my surgery on Saturday. She said that she had her boiler replaced and valves put on the existing system for more than £2,000. She is a pensioner and she got quotes from different companies. The highest quote was £1,500 from a local firm. Does my hon. Friend agree that many people are not asking questions, but those who are, including Mrs. Young and others in my constituency, are dissatisfied not only with the work but the fact that Eaga might be ripping off the Government?

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend is right. Rip-off is the only phrase that I can think of in the circumstances.

Rosie Cooper: My hon. Friend got there before me. Only last week, I told Eaga that I would seek an Adjournment debate because people are being ripped off. The pensioners whom we are supposed to help are losing money because of the money that they have to contribute on top of the Government grant. It is disgraceful that they are being treated in that way. Moreover, the Government are saying that, from April, they will allow people to choose the hospital to which they go and which saves their lives, yet under the operation of the scheme that we are considering, people cannot choose at a sensible price the man who arrives with the spanner. It is outrageous.

Robert Flello: I could not put the point better myself. It is outrageous. I have heard many such experiences. Colleagues who cannot be in the Chamber have also given examples. An hon. Member told me about a constituent who lives in a bungalow but was charged for scaffolding.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for holding the debate. I do not know whether he realises that I have been pursuing the matter for some time, in public, on the radio and so on. I have had dozens of e-mails, from not only my constituents but many other people, who suffer from another complaint: long delays of up to six months after they have paid their deposit. In one case in my constituency, a local plumber had to come to the rescue and provide the installation because the person concerned would have been cold over Christmas.

Robert Flello: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am also aware of the voucher scheme, under which people who do not qualify for the grant get a voucher. I understand that £50 from the £300 voucher is deducted for administration costs. If enough money was not already being generated for certain people out of the scheme, it appears that they are considering other ways in which to extract some cash.
	I have spoken to a contractor, who did not want to be named, who said that it was routine not to bother doing the power flushes. Mr. Degg is not the only person by a long way to experience problems with the workmanship and rip-off costs. In my constituency, Mrs. JB from Meir had a boiler and one radiator fitted. She had to pay £535.61 on top of the £2,700 Government grant to cover the £2,303 labour costs. Mrs. AC, also from the Meir, had a bog-standard boiler, one radiator and a new heating tank installed. She had to pay £614.70 of her own money on top of the Government grant to cover labour costs of £2,538.65.
	Lightwood residents Mr. and Mrs. H had a bog-standard boiler fitted and paid £253.40 of their own money on top of the Government grant to cover labour costs of £2,302. There appears to be something magical about the figure of £2,300 or thereabouts. Hanford resident Mrs. BW had to find a staggering £1,266.88 personal contribution because she had already had cavity wall and loft insulation the previous year, and the labour costs for replacing an old boiler and a pump were £2,356, not including the parts themselves. I have case after case after case.
	You may be wondering why you have not heard of hundreds of other cases in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason is simply that the problem is being hidden in many parts of the country, with local authorities or charities meeting the extra costs of the scheme. Not only are many of my constituents being ripped off, but in other parts of the country local rate payers and charities are being ripped off, too.
	What can be the reason for such high labour charges? The answer from Eaga is, "We can't tell you how much each bit of work costs for reasons of commercial sensitivity." That poor excuse means that we can do only one thing, and that is speculate. So let us speculate. As I have pointed out, the reason for the high labour charges is not that the whole house is being fitted with radiators or that the workmanship is of such high quality that the jobs are painstakingly done. Indeed, the July 2007 quality assurance assessor's report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quotes a figure of £23 an hour, which would mean 100 hours of work to fit a boiler and a radiator. That would be painstaking work indeed.
	The reason for high labour charges is not the costs of guaranteeing work, either, so perhaps it is that a cut is being taken at each level, from Eaga to contractor, sub-contractor and sub-sub-contractor. Perhaps the reason is that the work is Government contract work and therefore easy pickings for businesses on the approved list. Perhaps the reason is that at least one of firms doing the work is owned by Eaga, which operates the Warm Front scheme. Indeed, it would be interesting to know how many of the firms are owned by Eaga.
	I hope the reason for the high costs is not that people in one part of the country are subsidising folk in another. Put simply, I do not know why the labour charges are so high, because the information is "commercially sensitive", but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can find out. Can he also find out why inspectors are pretty much powerless; why it takes two days to put in one boiler and a radiator; why power flushes have routinely not been done; why poor quality work has been allowed; why firms owned by the Warm Front administrator are allowed to do the work; and why it costs £2,000 or more, excluding the equipment, to install a bog-standard boiler and one or two radiators when a local CORGI-registered plumber would charge that for fitting a combi boiler and six radiators?
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will give great care and attention to answering those points. However, I should like him also to dwell on the other important question that arises from what would otherwise be an excellent Government-funded scheme: how many of the most in-need citizens have not had their heating improved because they simply cannot afford to top up the grant?

Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many vulnerable people have benefited from the scheme? Does he agree also that the important thing is to have detailed talks with the Minister at DEFRA, so that we understand exactly where the costs of all the contracts are, but at the same time ensure that there is enough money, a high enough ceiling and sufficient criteria, so that previous work to install insulation is not deducted from the overall cost, but time-spent? We need to ensure that we deal with the issues of fuel poverty and energy efficiency. We also need to ensure that we have local contractors, so that the scheme creates a win-win situation for all those who benefit now and all who have done so in the past, because we do not want people who would otherwise benefit to be deterred from taking advantage of such a wonderful Government scheme.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for, as ever, making an extremely good intervention. It is important that Warm Front should be a good scheme. Equally, the danger with what, in the case after case that I have encountered, can be described only as a rip-off is that it will deter people from having the work done, and it must not, because it is important that the work should be done.
	I agree with my hon. Friend's point about time limiting. There should be a cut-off point for anyone who has had cavity wall or loft insulation done, so that it no longer counts against the budget in future. However, I am concerned that if DEFRA simply increases the grant funding, that will continue to add to the profits instead of addressing the underlying problem. I would rather not have secured this debate, if only I had received some sensible and proper answers from Eaga, rather than its "commercial sensitivity" avoidance.

Rosie Cooper: I totally agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. It is important that there should be accountability all the way through the system, from the cost to how we treat people. People need the scheme; therefore we must deliver it for them. However, it is a disgrace that for many, many months MPs have not been able to get answers out of Eaga, because only one person there has been dealing with MPs' inquiries. If that is not saying, "We don't care about being accountable", I do not know what is.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It would almost not matter whether Eaga had one person or 100 people. The problem is that the answers are simply not forthcoming. I have not been given the information, but suspect that that is because those answers cannot be forthcoming. I cannot see any way of justifying £2,300—which seems to be the ball-park figure—for installing one boiler and one radiator. That boiler is just a bog-standard boiler, not an all-singing, all-dancing one, and the service is not a fantastic service that could not possibly be had from anyone else.
	I have gone through all those points in my speech, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that answers are sought.

Kevan Jones: Answers need to be given to the points that my hon. Friend has raised. Does he also agree that Eaga's structure ought to be investigated? I remember it when it was a small organisation in Newcastle many years ago, but, as I understand it, some of the senior directors have now made an awful lot of money—through share ownership or in other ways—as a result of their employment by Eaga.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think that a root and branch investigation is required.
	The quality assessor's report document dated July 2007—which was based on the Warm Front scheme's central heating installation costs and charges appraisal—has miraculously, and quite coincidentally, appeared in many right hon. and hon. Members' e-mail inboxes today. It seems to represent some kind of last-ditch justification of the costs. As I said earlier, however, a figure of £23 an hour is quoted in it, and a total charge of £2,300—the cost of 100 hours' work—just does not stack up.

Sharon Hodgson: I came along tonight because I saw that Warm Front was the subject of the Adjournment debate and I wanted to talk about the good work that had been done in my constituency. I note that 4,000 households there have benefited from the various services that Warm Front offers. I have therefore been astonished to hear some of the things that have been said tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend would agree that the last thing that we want is for the scheme to end, and that what he would like to ensure is that no more pensioners or vulnerable people are ripped off, especially where public money is involved.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend makes her point very well.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, will give great attention to the answers to all these points. May I also ask him to dwell on the most important issues that arise from what would otherwise be an excellent Government-funded scheme? How many of the most in-need citizens have not had their heating improved because they simply do not have the money to top up the grant? How many cannot now afford cavity wall or loft insulation because all the grant has gone on rip-off Warm Front installations? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's answers—if not now, at the earliest opportunity—so that we can offer reassurance to the people out there who would like to have this work done, and so that we can put on notice those who are ripping off the system that they need to get their act together, otherwise the work will be taken away from them.

Phil Woolas: Congratulations are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) on securing this debate on the Warm Front scheme. The number of Members who have intervened on him has added to the seriousness of his questions and his criticisms. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate.
	I want to outline the good things about the scheme, as my hon. Friend and others did, but let me reassure the House that I take these issues extremely seriously. This is an important scheme for many hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people, and it is my pledge to the House that I will of course carry on looking into these problems and criticisms.
	Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would allow me to say—as have other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—what is particularly pleasing about the scheme. It is because we value the scheme so dearly that it is so important to reinstate its integrity in the eyes of right hon. and hon. Members who have raised this issue.
	The Government were the first in the world to set a target for the eradication of fuel poverty. We recognised that one of the key ways of making progress towards that was to support vulnerable households by providing efficient heating and insulation measures. That has been done on an unprecedented scale. Since the Warm Front scheme began in 2000, more than 1.6 million households have received assistance and this year we anticipate helping a total of around 240,000 households with some 100,000 receiving a heating measure: that could be replacing an old heating system or providing—in many cases, for the first time—central heating in the home. That significant action helps to mitigate the risk of those households struggling to keep warm at an affordable cost—a vital part of our work to help those vulnerable households to improve their quality of life.
	We should also not overlook the value of the Warm Front scheme in reducing household carbon emissions. Saving energy is saving money for the household as well as cutting the amount of carbon, and we estimate a cut of about 500,000 tonnes of carbon.
	In response to the debate, I would like to outline some of the measures and mechanisms in place to ensure that Warm Front delivers a high quality of service to those who come for assistance. I cannot deny that sometimes the customer's experience is not as good as we would all like. That is something we in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Eaga in its role as scheme manager continue to focus on.
	I am aware of the concern about the prices charged for Warm Front heating installations that has been expressed here this evening and elsewhere, and it is right that there should be an interest in seeing that we make the best use of the funding available to us in order to protect taxpayers' money and, of course, help as many households as possible. Let me explain the pricing system.
	The prices charged for Warm Front heating measures have been set on a regional basis, following an open and fully competitive procurement process. Installers in each region supplied tenders, outlining for how much they could perform each aspect of the installation work. Of those, the strongest tenders were chosen and they were used to set the prices for the scheme.

Oliver Letwin: Does the Minister accept that it is difficult to believe that the tender is straightforwardly open when, for example, in my region of the south-west, the winner of the tender is a wholly owned subsidiary of the manager of the tender?

Phil Woolas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has raised the issue diligently on behalf of his constituents. I have no complaint about that. In answer to the question, Iguana is a wholly owned subsidiary—albeit a legally separate entity—and is one of the 89 contractors granted access to the scheme. There is one other that provides insulation. I recognise the point, but I have never seen any evidence—I have looked into it, following concerns raised by the BBC, which also reported on the problem—of a conflict of interest. I acknowledge that the situation gives rise to concerns.
	To provide further confidence that the prices charged for Warm Front measures continue to provide value for money, let me add that the Department has commissioned two independent price reviews. Both found that Warm Front offers value and provides heating measures at significantly below what can be found for the same measures installed under the same standards in the private sector. That is the picture that the independent review painted. We have heard some examples this evening, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has asked me to look into the matter, and of course I will. I will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) later this week. I will also speak to Eaga later this week, as I often do.
	On the issue of excess payments, despite the fact that on the whole Warm Front provides well-priced installations, there are occasions, when the extent of the heating work is significant, or when the client has previously received assistance from the scheme, when the grant available for that household is not adequate to cover the cost of the measures recommended. In this financial year, that has been the case in 18 per cent. of households assisted. I cannot answer the other question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, about those who have not gone ahead as a result.
	I fully understand hon. Members' concerns about their constituents being asked to contribute towards their Warm Front measures, and paying more. My hon. Friend has raised that issue, and we take it seriously. Our clear aim is to provide everyone with the measures from which they could benefit at no cost to the household. One option would be not to have a grant limit. The reality, however, is that removing the grant spend limits per household would mean that the scheme could help many thousands fewer people.
	The grant limits are currently being reviewed to ensure that they are set at the correct level. That will enable an assessment of the impacts on the range of measures and number of households that can be helped. I will update the House on that review. I will examine the issue of the charges and the instances that my hon. Friend raised, and I am grateful to him for not pushing those questions this evening, because I need to look into the particular cases.

Rosie Cooper: At the same time as examining those matters, will the Minister consider whether people could exercise choice on the high street to get a plumber to do the work to acceptable standards at a much reduced cost, which would enable DEFRA to help more people to beat heat poverty and get the heat that they need?

Phil Woolas: This is a Government scheme, and the tender process, including for the scheme manager, has quality thresholds. Those people who passed the test and put in for tender have been granted contracts, of which there are 89 across the country. That has been done on a regional basis, and there has been an attempt to do it on a local basis too. Where local suppliers are willing to participate in the scheme, their tenders are taken seriously. Let me say to some of the sceptics among my hon. Friends that there is no immunity from the practices of the rest of the sector just because this is a Government scheme.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but it does not work like that. According to many of my constituents, the people who do their work in North Durham come from all over the country and have no contact with them. According to local CORGI suppliers, they have no chance of getting the work because of the cartel and closed shop run by Eaga.

Phil Woolas: The first point can be addressed by saying that the tendering process for contracts is on a regional basis— [Interruption.] Some of the cases that I have looked at involved company addresses that were some miles away, but local depots were being used. As far as I am aware—I choose my words carefully—none of the companies that have suggested that they could carry out the work adequately for a lower price than charged under the scheme put in tenders during the process. I am not saying that the situation is perfect, but I think we need a dose of realism when it comes to some of the accusations that are made.

Robert Flello: I am listening intently to my hon. Friend, but how can he square that statement with the fact that companies on the approved list for Eaga are offering to do work in my constituency at a substantially lower rate than the rate offered for Eaga work?

Phil Woolas: That is a slightly different point from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), but it is an important point, which is why I have offered to look into the cases that he has raised.
	Let me re-emphasise that the installers chosen to work on the scheme were chosen on the strength of their tender as part of the competitive process, and the subsequent confidence in their ability to deliver. To show preference arbitrarily when using taxpayers' money—
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o' clock.